*WV' 


\M^^i 


^M|^ 


i 


^^.«i 


'^r^i^'^r^' 


«»>. 


V  *       «  ii  ^  a  '-  ^ 


A^^Wl 


f^A 


^^' 


r  s,      ,       'ft  *  ^  ^  n  J 


«52 


1^^* 


.:n 


A 


IM' 


t#^ 


'hfiM' 


0^ 


'f'm 


4f, 


^i 


THE 


AMERICA!  STATESMAT^: 

A   POLITICAL   HISTORY         ^    i  ^^  \ 


EXHIBITING   THE 


ORIGIN,    NATURE   AND    PRACTICAL    OPERATION    OP    CONSTITUTIONAL 
GOVERNMENT  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES  ; 


THE  RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PARTIES 


VIEWS    OF   DISTINGUISHED    STATESMEN    ON   QUESTIONS    OF  FOREIGN 
AND    DOMESTIC    POLICY; 

WITH    AN    APPENDIX 

CONTAINING 
AND    OTHER    USEFUL    MATTER. 


BY    ANDRE^V    ^V.    YOUNG, 

Author  of  "Science  of  Government,"  "First  Lessons  in  Civil  Government,"  "Citizi 
Manual  of  Government  and  Law." 


NEW  YOKK  : 

J'.    C.    DERBY,    119    NASSAU    STREET. 

1855. 


E  sol 


1 


t> 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1855,  by 

ANDREW   W.    YOUNG, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Northern 

District  of  New  York. 


GIFT  OF 
Baacroft 
UBRARY 


JOHN    J.    REED, 

Stekeotyper  and  Printer, 

16  Spruce  Street,  N.  Y. 


PREFACE 


The  general  diffusion  of  political  knowledge  is  essential  to 
public  prosperity,  and  to  the  security  of  our  liberties.  A  gov- 
ernment, whatever  its  form,  is  not  really  free,  when  its  theory 
and  practical  operation  are  not  understood  by  the  great  body 
of  those  from  whom  its  powers  are  derived.  Universal  suffrage 
is  valuable  only  as  its  exercise  is  directed  by  an  enlightened 
public  sentiment. 

While  these  propositions  are  universally  acknowledged  as 
self-evident  truths,  it  must  be  confessed,  that  the  knowledge 
of  our  government  is  too  limited  to  secure  the  uninterrupted 
enjoyment  of 'the  benefits  of  good  administration.  A  large  por- 
tion of  our  citizens  assume  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of 
freemen,  without  the  information  requisite  to  a  faithful  dis- 
charge of  these  vast  responsibilities  devolved  upon  them  by  the 
constitution  and  laws.  Many  of  them,  ambitious  of  civil  honors, 
accept  important  public  trusts,  with  attainments  in  political 
science  too  circumscribed  to  enable  them  to  render  efficient  ser- 
vice to  the  state,  or  to  gain  to  themselves  an  honorable  dis- 
tinction. In  the  character  and  acts  of  many  of  our  legislative 
bodies,  does  the  truth  of  this  remark  find  abundant  confirma- 
tion. 

The  design  of  this  work  is  to  bring  within  the  reach  of  our 
citizens  generally,  in  a  single  volume,  the  greatest  possible 
amount  of  that  kind  of  information  which  all  ought  to  possess  ; 
but  which  is  to  be  obtained  elsewhere  only  in  works  so  volumi- 
nous and  expensive  as  to  render  it  inaccessible  to  the  greater 
portion  of  the  community. 

A  prominent  and  essential  feature  of  the  work  is,  that  on  all 
controverted  questions,  whether  involving  constitutional  prin- 

861.391. 


IV  PREFACE. 

ciples,  or  mere  considerations  of  expediency,  tlie  substance  of 
the  arguments  on  both  sides  has  been  faithfully  and  impar- 
tially given.  On  subjects  of  party  controversy,  the  author  has 
withheld  the  expression  of  his  own  opinions,  deeming  it  best  to 
leave  the  unconfirmed  politician  to  the  exercise  of  his  own 
unbiased  judgment  in  forming  his  conclusions.  By  thus  pre- 
senting the  different  views  of  our  ablest  statesmen,  the  work 
will  be  rendered  valuable  to  the  political  student  as  a  consti- 
tutional expositor,  and  as  a  guide  to  the  formation  of  enlight- 
ened opinions  on  questions  of  public  policy  ;  while  to  the 
more  advanced  politician,  the  great  variety  of  its  matter  will 
make  it  convenient  and  useful  as  a  book  of  reference. 

Neither  the  capacity  nor  the  design  of  this  w^ork,  has  per- 
mitted the  introduction  of  local  politics.  The  selection  of 
matter  has  been  almost  exclusively  confined  to  subjects  of  a 
national  character.  Notwithstanding  the  volume  has  been 
^welled  far  beyond  its  intended  size — embracing  most  of  the 
principal  subjects  of  our  political  history — much  useful  and 
interesting  matter  has  been  necessarily  passed  over,  which  may 
hereafter  appear  in  a  supplementary  volume. 

It  has  been  an  object  of  much  care  to  make  the  work  a  reli- 
able one.  Its  statements  are  founded  principally  upon  the 
official  records  of  the  government.  In  the  condensation  of 
speeches,  reports,  and  other  documents,  pains  have  been  taken 
to  present  their  strongest  points,  as  well  as  their  true  meaning. 
Where  recourse  to  other  sources  of  information  has  been  neces- 
sary, reference  has  been  had  to  approved  and  standard  works, 
among  which  are  those  of  Marshall,  Pitkin,  Bancroft,  Hildreth, 
and  others. 

That  the  work,  nevertheless,  contains  some  slight  inaccura- 
cies, is  not  improbable.  Is  is  believed,  however,  that  it  will  be 
found  free  from  material  errors  ;  and  that  it  will  be  acknow- 
ledged to  possess  claims  to  the  public  favor,  and  conduce  in 
some  good  degree^  to  a  higher  and  a  more  general  appreciation 
of  our  political  institutions. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  COLONIES,  AND  THEIR  FORMS  OF  GOVERNMENT. 

Origin  of  our  republican  institutions,  21.  Charter  governments;  landing  of  the 
puritans,  22.  Government  of  the  New  England  colonies,  23-26.  Royal  or 
provincial  governments,  26-30.     Proprietary  governments,  30 

CHAPTER  II. 

TAXATION    OF    THE    COLONIES,  AND    OTHER    CAUSES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. INDE- 
PENDENCE   SECURED. 

The  right  of  colonial  taxation  by  England  denied,  83.  British  navigation  acts, 
35.  Manufactures  in  colonies  suppressed,  36.  Stamp  act,  37-39.  Congress 
of  deputies'  petition  for  relief,  38.  Franklin  deputed  to  England,  39.  Parlia- 
ment asserts  the  right  to  tax  in  all  cases,  39.  Glass,  paper,  &c.,  taxed,  40. 
Enforcement  of  the  laws  resisted,  41.  Non-importing  associations,  41, 42. 
^  General  court  adjourned  to  Cambridge,  42.  Boston  riots,  43.  Tea  destroyed, 
43-44.  Boston  port  bill,  44,  45.  Congresses  of  1774  and  1775 ;  hostilities 
commenced,  46.     Independence  declared,  47. 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  GOVERNMENT    OF    THE    CONFEDERATION. TREATY    WITH    FRANCE. — NEGO- 
TIATION WITH    GREAT  BRITAIN. — PEACE. — CALL  FOR  A  CONVENTION. 

Nature  of  the  confederation,  48.  State  governments  formed.  49.  Alliance  with 
France;  attempts  at  conciliation,  50,51.  Congress  of  Vienna,  51.  Treaty  of 
peace,  52.  Defects  of  the  confederation,  52.  Difficulties  with  Great  Britain 
and  Spain,  55,  56.  Shay's  insurrection,  56.  Movements  for  a  convention,  57. 
Cession  of  the  western  lands,  58.    Anti-slavery  ordinance,  58,  59. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  CONVENTION  IN  FORMING  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

Constitutional  convention  organized,  60.  Plans  of  government  proposed,  61-62. 
Slavery  and  the  rfile  of  apportionment,  64-71.  Compromises,  70,  71.  Execu- 
tive department,  plan  of,  71,  72.  Federalists  and  anti-federalists  73.  Constitu- 
tion ratified,  73,  74. 

CHAPTER  V. 

MEETING    OF    THE    FIRST    CONGRESS. A    SYSTEM    OF    FINANCE    ADOPTED. THE 

FUNDING    OF    THE    PUBLIC    DEBT. THE    SEAT    OF    GOVBft^MIlifl. 

Meeting  of  Congress  in  New  York  ;  election  of  Washington  and  Adams  ;  acts  for 
ithe  encouragement  of  manufactures  and  navigation,  75,  76.  Power  of  removal, 
76.  Washington's  cabinet;  constitutional  amendments,  77.  Plans  of  finance  ; 
funding  of  the  public  debt,  78-85.  North  Carolina  cedes  her  Avcsteru  lands, 
85.     Scat  of  government,  85,  86. 


VI  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

EXCISE  ON    DISTILLED    LIQUORS. — INCORPORATION    OF    A   NATIONAL    BANK. AP- 
PORTIONMENT   BILL. — WAR   WITH    THE    WESTERN   INDIANS. 

Proposed  increase  of  duties,  86.  Opposition  to  the  administration,  87.  National 
bank,  88-91.  Kentucky  admitted  into  the  union,  92.  Apportionment  of 
representatives,  9^.     Indian  hostilities,  93,  94.     Tariff  increased,  94. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

OPPOSITION  TO  W^ASHINGTOn's  ADMINISTRATION.  —  DIFFERENCES  BETWEEN 
SECRETARIES  JEFFERSON  AND  HAMILTON. WHISKY  INSURRECTION. FUGI- 
TIVE   LAW. — CONSTITUTION   AMENDED. 

Opposition  to  the  administration ;  Cabinet  controversy  ;  Jefferson  and  Hamilton, 
95-101.     Their  letters    to  Washington,  102-104.     Whisky   insurrection,   105, 

106.  Re-election  of  Washington  and  Adams,  106.     Charges  against  Hamilton, 

107.  Fugitive  slave  law,  107, 108.    Amendment  of  the  constitution,  108. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

OPPOSITION  TO  THE  ADMINISTRATION. RELATIONS  WITH  FRANCE. PROCLA- 
MATION    OF     NEUTRALITY. GENET,  THE   FRENCH     MINISTER. POLICY    OF 

GREAT    BRITAIN. 

French  revolution,  109.  Our  relations  with  France,  110.  Proclamation  of 
neutrality.  111,  112.  Difficulties  with  Genet,  the  French  minister,  112-118. 
Democratic  societies,  116.  Affair  of  Little  Democrat,  117.  Genet  recalled, 
119.  Morris  recalled  from  France ;  Monroe  appointed ;  Letters  of  Hamilton 
and  Madison  on  the  proclamation,  119.    British  policy,  119, 120. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  THIRD  CONGRESS. — PRESIDENT'S  RECOMMENDATIONS. — JEFFERSOn's  COM- 
MERCIAL REPORT  ;    HIS    RESIGNATION. MADISON's    RESOLUTIONS. PROSPECT 

OF    WAR    WITH    GREAT  BRITAIN. JAY's  MISSION  TO  ENGLAND. 

The  third  congress  meets ;  president's  recommendations,  121, 122,  Jefferson's 
commercial  report,  122.  Resignation,  124.  Madison's  resolutions,  124-129. 
Naval  force  against  Algiers,  129, 130.  Difficulties  with  Great  Britain,  130-134. 
Jay's  mission  to  England,  132-134.  Charges  against  Hamilton  renewed;  Neu- 
trality law,  133.     Western  Indians  defeated  by  Wayne,  133, 

CHAPTER  X. 

DECLINE  OF  DEMOCRATIC  SOCIETIES. FUNDING  SYSTEM  CONSUMMATED. RESIG- 
NATION OF  HAMILTON  AND  KNOX. THE  JAY  TREATY. TREATIES  WITH  SPAIN 

AND  ALGIERS. — MONROE  RECALLED. 

Washington  against  democratic  societies,  135.  Hamilton's  report  on  the  public 
debt,  136.  Hamilton  and  Knox  resign,  136.  The  Jay  treaty,  137.  Public 
sentiment  respecting  it,  139, 140.  Randolph  resigns  ;  Bradford  dies  ;  Cabinet 
appointments,  140.  Indian  treaty,  140.  Treaties  with  Spain  and  Algiers,  140'. 
Presentation  of  French  colors,  141.  Debate  on  the  Jay  treaty,  142-146.  France, 
Spain,  and  Holland  dissatisfied  with  the  treaty,  146,147.  Alliance  of  France 
and  Spain,  147.  Monroe  succeeded  by  Pinckney,  148. 


CONTENTS.  Vii 

CHAPTER  XI. 

WASHINGTON  DECLINES  ANOTHER  REELECTION. — HIS  LAST  ANNUAL  MESSAGE. — 
MR.  PINCKNEY  EXPELLED  FROM  FRANCE. — ELECTION  OF  ADAMS  AND  JEFFER- 
SON. 

Washington  declines  another  re-election,  148.  His  suspicions  of  Jefferson,  149, 150. 
The  Mazzei  letter,  150.  Forged  letters,  151.  French  minister  and  the  election, 
152.  Tri-colored  cockade,  153.  Washington's  last  message,  153,  154.  French 
government  refuse  to  receive  Pinckney,  155.  Election  of  Adams  and  Jefferson, 
156.     Washington  retires  ;  is  denounced  by  the  Aurora,  156. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

INAUGURATION  OF  MR.  ADAMS. — RELATIONS  WITH  FRANCE. — SPECIAL  SESSION. 

MEASURES  OF  DEFENSE. ALIEN    AND  SEDITION  LAWS. 

Adams'  inauguration  and  address,  157-160.  His  cabinet,  160.  Ministers  abroad, 
160.  Unlawful  decree  of  France,  160.  Defense  measures ;  Stamp  act.  161. 
Envoys  to  France,  162.  Novel  diplomacy,  162-165.  Acts  of  non-intercourse 
and  defense  against  France,  165.  Navy  department  established,  166.  Wash- 
ington again  commander-in-chief,  166.  Other  army  appointments,  166.  Opposi- 
tion to  the  administration,  167.  Jefferson's  letters  to  Madison,  167,  168. 
"  Black  cockade  federalist,"  168.  Mississippi  territory,  169.  Alien  and  sedi- 
tion laws  ;  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions ;  Nullification,  172-176.  Case 
of  Matthew  Lyon,  176,177. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

DIFFICULTIES  WITH  FRANCE. TREATY  NEGOTIATED. — DIVISION  OF  THE    FEDER- 
ALISTS.  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION. 

A  new  mission  to  France  ;  Dissensions  in  the  administration,  178-180.  Another 
revolution  in  France,  181.  Treaty  negotiated,  182,183.  Ratified,  184. 
Newspaper  press,  184-186.  Resistance  to  tax  law  in  Pennsylvania,  186-187. 
Sixth  congress,  first  session,  187.  Indiana  territory,  188.  Rupture  in  the 
cabinet,  188-189.  Presidential  election,  189-192.  Jefferson  and  Burr,  191,  192. 
New  judicial  act,  190.  Implication  and  vindication  of  Bayard  and  others, 
192-195. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

MR.  Jefferson's  inauguration. — appointments.  —  naturalization. —  pur- 
chase OF  LOUISIANA BOUNDARY  TREATY  WITH  ENGLAND. 

Inauguration  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  address,  196-198.  His  cabinet,  198. 
Appointments  and  removals,  198-202,  Acts  passed,  1801-1802 ;  'Use  of  the 
port  of  New  Orleans  interrupted,  204.  Purchase  of  Louisiana,  203-209. 
Monroe  succeeds  Rufus  King  at  London,  208.  Spain  dissatisfied  with  the 
purchase  of  Louisiana,  209.  Division  of  the  territory,  209.  Attempt  to 
introduce  slavery  into  Indiana,  209, 210.  Amendment  of  the  constitution,  210, 
Spain  refuses  to  ratify  a  treaty  for  indemnity,  210.  Louisiana  boundary,  210- 
211.  Spain  consents  to  the  transfer,  211.  Treaty  of  boundary  with  Great 
.  Britain,  211-212. 


Viii  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

MR.  Jefferson's  re-election. — relations  with  trance  and   England. — 

TREATY    WITH    THE    LATTER     REJECTED. — AFFAIR     OF     THE     CHESAPEAKE. — 
SLAVE    TRADE  ABOLISHED. 

Re-election  of  Jefferson,  212.  Gunboat  system,  212,213.  Indiana  and  Orleans 
territories,  213.  Jefferson's  inauguration,  214-216.  Relations  with  Spain, 
England,  and  France,  216-218.  Madison's  statement ;  Seamen  impressed, 
218°  219.  Two  million  bill,  219, 220.  Randolph's  defection,  219,  220.  Non- 
intercourse  with  St.  Domingo,  220.  Retaliatory  duties  ;  Act  for  defense,  220. 
Cumberland  Road,  220.  Negotiations  with  Spain,  221.  Treaty  with  England 
rejected,  221, 222.     Afiair  of  the  Chesapeake,  223-225.     Slave  trade  prohibited, 

225, 226. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE     COMMERCIAL     WARFARE    BETWEEN     GREAT     BRITAIN,     FRANCE,    AND    THE 

UNITED      STATES.— BRITISH    ORDERS     IN     COUNCIL. FRENCH,     BERLIN,     AND 

MILAN  DECREES. — THE  EMBARGO,  &C.— DIPLOMATIC    DISCUSSIONS. 

British  orders  in  council ;  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  of  France,  226-228.  Embargo, 
&c.,  228.  Suppressed  documents,  229-231.  Effects  of  embargo,  232.  Non- 
intercourse  law,  232-233,  British  negotiation,  (Erskine  and  Jackson,)  233- 
234  Rambouillet  decree,  234.  Conditional  non-intercourse,  234.  Conditional 
revocation  of  French  decrees,  235.  Non-intercourse  with  France  revoked,  235. 
Diplomatic  discussion  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  (Monroe 
and  Foster,)  235-240.  French  restrictions  ^till  continue,  241,  242.  Supposed 
objects  of  Great  Britain  and  France,  243.     Secretary  Smith's  resignation  and 

expose,  243-247. 

^      '  CHAPTER  XVII. 

TWELFTH    CONGRESS.— BRITISH    PLOT.— THE    WAR    QUESTION     IN    CONGRESS.— 
DECLARATION  OF  WAR. 

Early  meeting  of  congress,  247.  British  plot,  (John  Henry,)  248-249.  Measures 
of  defenpe,  249.  Embargo,  250.  Presidential  nominations,  250.  War  message, 
251.  War  report,  252.  French  doctrine  of  neutral  rights,  252, 253.  War  de- 
clared, 254.  Address  of  minority  of  congress,  254-258.  Bonaparte's  decree 
of  repeal,  258, 259.  Orders  in  council  revoked,  259.  Departure  of  British 
minister,  (Foster);  At  Halifax;  Armistice  proposed  and  declined,  260,261. 
Number  of  impressments,  261.  War  measures,  262.  Admission  of  Louisiana  ; 
Missouri  territory,  262. 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

RE-ELECTION  OF  MR.  MADISON.— CONTROVERSY  WITH  MASSACHUSETTS  AND 
CONNECTICUT.— RUSSIA  OFFERS  TO  MEDIATE. DUTIES  AND  TAXES. — EMBAR- 
GO.—ITS  SUDDEN  REPEAL.— OFFER  TO  NEGOTIATE.— ACCEPTED.— CAPITOL 
BURNED. — HARTFORD  CONVENTION. — BANK  PROJECTS. 

Re-election  of  Madison,  262.    Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  disregard  war  orders, 

263.  Loan  authorized,  263.     Act  to  relieve  importers,  263.     Retaliation  act, 

264.  Russian  mediation,  264-267.  Negotiation  for  peace;  Commissioners, 
264-267.  Duties  and  taxes,  264,265.  Embargo,  265.  New  loan,  266.  Em- 
bargo and  non-intercourse  repealed,  266.  Restoration  of  the  Bourbons,  267. 
Capitol  at  Washington  burned,  268.  Further  war  measures,  2^9.  Hartford 
convention,  269-272.    State  of  tlie  finances,  272.    National  bank propo.sed,  272. 


CONTENTS.  ix 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

PEACE   WITH  GREAT  BRITAIN. GENERAL  JACKSON  AND  MARTIAL    LAW    AT  NEW 

ORLEANS. — PROTECTIVE  TARIFF. — BANK. — COxMPENSATION,  NAVIGATION,  NEU- 
TRALITY, AND  OTHER  ACTS. 

Peace  concluded,  274-276.  Gen.  Jackson  and  martial  law  at  New  Orleans.  277- 
279.  Tariff  of  1816,  279-281.  Bank  incorporated,  281.  Indiana  admitted, 
282,283.  Specie  payments  resumed^  282.  Compensation  of  members  of  con- 
gress, 282.     Congressional  caucus,  282.     Navigation  act,  283. 

CHAPTER  XX. 

ELECTION  AND  INAUGURATION  OF    MR.  MONROE. — CORRESPONDENCE  WITH  GEN. 
JACKSON. — CABINET  APPOINTMENTS. — PRESIDENT'S  TOUR. 

Election  and  inauguration  of  Monroe,  284.  Monroe  and  Jackson  correspondence, 
285-288.     Cabinet  appointments,  288.     President's  tour,  289. 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

THE  SEMINOLE  WAR. OFFICIAL  INVESTIGATION  OF  THE  OCCUPATION  OF  FLORIDA 

BY  GEN.  JACKSON. RATIFICATION  OF  A  TREATY  WITH  SPAIN. — TREATY  WITH 

GREAT  BRITAIN. — CESSION  OF  FLORIDA  AND   THE    WESTERN  TERRITORY. 

Seminole  war,  289,  &c.  Ambrister  and  Arbuthnot,  290;  Trial  and  execution 
of,  292, 293.  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola  taken  by  Jackson,  290-292.  Jack- 
son's conduct  investigated  by  congiess,  293-295.  Jackson's  memorial,  296- 
298.  Treaties  with  Spain  and  Great  Britain,  299-302.  Florida,  &c.,  ceded  to 
tho  United  States,  301,  &c.     Ratification  delayed  by  Spain,  302,303. 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

INVESTIGATION    OF    THE    AFFAIRS    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES    BANK. — OPINION    OF 

THE  SUPREME  COURT  ON  ITS  CONSTITUTIONALITY. DECISION  OF  THE  CIRCUIT 

COURT. — JUDICIAL    DECISION    ON   BANKRUPT   LAWS. — QUESTION    OF    INTERNAL 
IMPROVEMENTS. 

United  States  bank  investigated,  304.  Supreme  court  decides  it  constitutional, 
305,  &c.  Decision  on  bankrupt  and  insolvent  laws,  308,  309.  Internal  im- 
provements bill  vetoed  by  Madison,  309.  Congressional  report,  309-311. 
Cumberland  road  bill  vetoed,  (Monroe,)  311,  312. 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

THE     MISSOURI     COMPROMISE. ADMISSION     OF     MAINE    AND     MISSOURI     INTO    THE 

UNION. 

Admission  of  Missouri  as  a  state  defeated,  213.  Maine  and  Missouri  admitted; 
Slavery  compromise,  313-319. 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE   FINANCES. THE    TARIFF    OF    1824 SPEECHES    OF    CLAY    AND    WEBSTER. 

Meeting  of  the  18th  congress,  320.  Tariff  of  1824,  321,  &c.  Vote  on  tariff  bill 
in  1820,  321;  On  tariff  of  1824,  322,323.  Speech  of  Mr.  Clay,  323-331. 
Speech  of  Mr.  Webster,  331-340. 


X  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

ELECTION     OP     MR.     ADAMS. THE     ALLEGED    COALITION   BETWEEN   ADAMS   AND 

CLAY. PROPOSITIONS    FOR   RETRENOIIMENT    AND    REFORM. 

Congressional  caucus,  unpopular,  341,  Mr.  Crawford  nominated,  342,  History 
of  caucuses,  342, 343,  Mr,  Adams  elected,  343 ;  Inaugurated,  344.  His  cabi- 
net, 344.  Alleged  coalition  of  Adams  and  Clay,  345,  &c.  Investigation  in 
congress,  346.    Propositions  for  retrenchment  and  reform,  348,  &c. 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

THE  PANAMA  MISSION. 

The  Panama  mission  proposed,  352.  Commissioners  nominated,  353 ;  Confirmed^ 
355.  Mission  reported  against,  354  ;  Debate  on,  in  the  house,  355-360.  The 
congress  meets  at  Panama,  360,    Adjourned  to  Tacubaya,  361. 

CHAPTER  XXVII, 

CONTROVERSY  WITH  GEORGIA,  IN  RELATION  TO  THE  REMOVAL  OF  THE  INDIANS. 

Removal  of  the  Indians,  361,  Treaty  with  the  Creeks  in  Georgia,  362,  Contro- 
versy between  Georgia  and  the  general  government,  363,  &c.  Gov.  Troup 
and  Gen.  Gaines,  368,  369.  New  treaty,  370.  Georgia  prepares  for  resistance, 
871.     Bill  for  the  preservation  and  civilization  of  the  Indians,  372-374. 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

RUSSIAN  AND  BRITISH  CLAIMS  ON  THE  PACIFIC  COAST. — OCCUPATION    OF    COLUM- 
BIA RIVER. PUBLISHING  THE  LAWS. 

Russian  claims  on  the  Pacific,  374.  Treaty  with  Russia,  376.  Claims  of  Great 
Britain,  377.     Occupation  of  Oregon,  377-382.    Publishing  the  laws,  381,  382. 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

WEST  INDIA  TRADE. NAVIGATION  OF  THE  ST.  LAWRENCE. 

Trade  with  British  colonies,  382,  &c.  Mr.  Gallatin  sent  to  England ;  Negotiation 
cut  oflf,  384.  New  treaties  with  Great  Britain,  386.  North-eastern  boundary, 
386.     Navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  386-390. 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

NOMINATION  OF  GEN.  JACKSON. — MORE    OF   THE  "  COALITION." — JACKSON^S    LET- 
TERS   ON   THE   TARIFF    AND    INTERNAL    IMPROVEMENTS. 

(Jen.  Jackson  nominated  by  the  legislature  of  Tennessee  ;  Letter  of  resignation 
as  senator,  391-393.  Recommends  amendments  of  constitution,  392.  The 
"  coalition"  charge  renewed,  393,  &c.  Carter  Beverley's  letter  and  Jackson's, 
394.  Buchanan's,  Eaton's  and  Markley's  letters,  396-399.  Clay's  address, 
399.  Adams'  declaration,  400.  Jackson's  letter  to  the  Indiana  legislature  on 
the  tariff  and  internal  improvements,  401-403. 

CHAPTER  XXXI. 

THE    "woolens   bill." — HARRISBURG    CONVENTION. — TARIFF    OF   1828. 

Additional  duties  on  wool  and  woolen  goods  proposed,  403-405.  Debate  on  the 
bill,  405  411.  Tariff  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  412.  Harrisburg  convention, 
412-414  Tariff  of  1828,  414,  «fcc.  Debate  on,  415-418.  Feeling  at  the  south 
respecting,  419, 420. 


CONTENTS.  XI 

CHAPTER  XXXII. 

INTRODUCTION    AND    DISCUSSION   OF    RESOLUTIONS   ON    RETRENCHMENT   AND 

REFORM. 

Mr.  Chilton's  resolutions  for  retrenchment  and  reform,  421,  Abuses  specified, 
422.  Administration  defended,  424-427.  Union  of  the  friends  of  Jackson, 
Crawford,  and  Calhoun,  427.    Resolutions  disposed  of,  427,  428. 

CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTIONEERING. — JEFFERSON's  OPINIONS  OF    THE  CANDIDATES. 
— ADAMS    AND    GILES    CONTROVERSY. 

Mr.  Jefferson's  opinions  of  Adams  and  Jackson,  428,  &c.  Gov.  Coles  and  Gov. 
Gilmer's  statements,  429-430.  Garret  Minor's  letter,  431.  Mr.  Jefferson's 
letters  to  Giles,  431-435,     Adams  and  Giles  controversy,  436-441. 

CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

POLITICS  OF  1808. MR.  ADAMS  AND  THE  BOSTON  FEDERALISTS. CHARGE    OF  AN 

ATTEMPT    TO    DIVIDE    THE    UNION. 

Mr.  Adams'  charge  against  the  federalists  ;  A  specification  requested,  442,     Mr. 

Adams'  reply,  443-449.    Federalists'  appeal,  449-455,    Gov.  Plumer's  testimony, 

455.     Implication   of  Hamilton,  456.     Judge   Gould's  reply  to  Mr.  Adams, 

456-458. 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 

ANOTHER    ALLEGED    ATTEMPT    TO    DIVIDE    THE    UNION. 

Another  disunion  project  charged,  459.  Denial  of  Hayne,  460.  Reply  of  Mitchell, 
460-462.     Hayne's  rejoinder,  462. 

CHAPTER  XXXVI. 

RISE    AND    PROGRESS    OF     THE    ANTI-MASONIC    PARTY. 

Anti-masonry ;  Abduction  of  William  Morgan,  463, 464,  Participators  in,  convicted, 
464.     Organization  and  progress  of  the  anti-masonic  party,  465, 466 

CHAPTER  XXXVII. 

BATTLE  OF  NEW  ORLEANS,  AND    THE    SIX    MILITIA    MEN. — FUGITIVE  SLAVES  AND 

ABOLITION. — PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION. — ANTI-TARIFF  PROTESTS. INTERNAL 

IMPROVEMENT    FUND. PUBLIC    LANDS    IN    INDIANA. 

Picture  of  the  battle  of  New  Orleans  proposed,  467.    The  six  Tennessee  militiamen, 

467.  Attempt  to  procure  the  surrender  of  fugitive  slaves  from  Great  Britain, 

468.  Abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  468, 469.  Election  of 
1828,  469, 470.  Protests  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  against  the  tariff,  470- 
471.  Dickerson's  plan  to  distribute  the  revenue,  472.  Debate  on,  473.  Indi- 
ana claims  public  lands,  474.  Distribution  of  land  sales  proposed,  475.  Re- 
trenchment, 476. 

CHAPTER  XXXVIII, 

INAUGURATION    OF    PRESIDENT    JACKSON. — REMOVALS   FROM    OFFICE. — MEETING 
OF    CONGRESS. — PRESIDENT'S    MESSAGE. 

Inauguration  of  Gen.  Jackson,  476,  477.  His  cabinet,  477,  New  rule  of  removal 
and  appointment,  478,  479.  Extent  of  removals,  480,  Meeting  of  congress ; 
President's  message,  481-484.     Power  of  removal  discussed,  484-486. 


XU  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

foot's    resolutions    on    the    public    lands. — GREAT  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE. 

Foot's  resolutions  for  a  temporary  limitation  of  land  sales,  487.  Speeches  of 
Hayne  and  Webster,  488-496.  Debate  continued  by  Benton,  Rowan,  Grundy, 
Woodbury,  Smith,  and  others,  496-500. 

CHAPTER  XL. 

UNITED    STATES    BANK. — MAYSVILLE  ROAD  BILL,  AND    OTHERS. — VETOES  OF    THE 

PRESIDENT. 

M'Duffie's  report  on  the  bank  of  the  United  States,  500-50G.  Smith's  report, 
506.  Maysville  and  Washington  road  bills  vetoed,  506-508.  Hemphill's  report 
on  vetoes,  508.  River  and  harbor  bill  passed,  509.  M'Duffie  on  revenue  bill, 
509;  510. 

CHAPTER  XLI. 

GEORGIA  AND  THE  CHEROKEES. — DEBATE  ON  THE  "  INDIAN  BILL." — OPINION    OF 
THE    SUPREME    COURT. 

Indian  policy  of  President  Jackson;  Cherokees,  510.  Law  of  Georgia,  and  Cher- 
okee memorial,  511.  Opinion  of  attorney-general,  512-514.  Bills  for  the  re- 
moval of  the  Indians,  514.  Bills  debated,  514-524.  Bill  passed,  524.  Treaty 
with  the  Choctaws,  524.  Memorial  of  the  Cherokees  against  the  laws  of  Geor- 
gia, 525.  Case  carried  to  the  supreme  court,  526.  Execution  of  Tassels,  527. 
Decision  of  the  court,  527. 

CHAPTER  XLII. 

WEST  INDIA  TRADE. MR.  M  LANe's  ARRANGEMENT. — JOHN  RANDOLPH'S  MISSION 

TO  RUSSIA. 

Mr.  McLane's  arrangement  respecting  the  West  India  trade,  528-530.  John 
Randolph's  mis^on  to  Russia,  530,  531.  Post  office  investigation,  531.  At- 
tempt to  modify  the  judiciary  act,  532, 533.  Impeachment  and  trial  of  Judge 
Peck,  533, 534.     Attempt  to  revise  the  tariff,  534-536,  &c. 

CHAPTER  XLIII. 

CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN  MR.  CALHOUN  AND   GEN.  JACKSON  IN  RELATION  TO    OC- 
CURRENCES   IN    THE   SEMINOLE    WAR, 

Mr.  Calhoun's  charge  against  Gen.  Jackson,  536.  Counter-crimination  and  re- 
crimination, 537.     Repetition  of  the  Florida  war  controversy,  537. 

CHAPTER  XLIV. 

DISSOLUTION    OF   GEN.    JACKSON's    CABINET. MR.    VAN    BUREn's    REJECTION    AS 

MINISTER    TO  ENGLAND. — CASE    OF    THE    CHEROKEES. 

Parties  in  Gen.  Jackson's  cabinet,  547.  Resignation  of  secretaries  and  attorney- 
general  ;  New  cabinet,  548.  Supposed  cause  of  the  cabinet  rupture,  549. 
Ingham  and  Eaton,  549.  Conflicting  statements  of  the  cabinet  officers  and  Col. 
Johnson,  550-552.  Mr.  Van  Buren  is  sent  as  minister  to  England,  552.  Debate 
on  the  nomination,  in  executive  session,  and  his  rejection,  553-555.  Case  of 
the  Cherokees.,  555-559. 


CONTENTS.  XUl 

CHAPTER  XLV. 

PUBLIC    LANDS. — INTERNAL    IMPROVEMENTS. — PRESIDENTIAL    VETOES. — TARIFF 

OF  1832. APPORTIONMENT    UNDER  THE    FIFTH  CENSUS. PRESIDENTIAL  ELEC- 
TION.— RETURN    OF    THE    LAND    BILL. 

The  subject  of  public  lands  referred  to  committee  on  manufactures,  559.  Clay's 
and  King's  reports,  559,  560.  Land  bill,  560.  Internal  improvement  and  harbor 
bills,  561.  State  claims  bill,  561,  562.  Tariff,  sundry  reports  and  bills,  562- 
663.  Apportionment  under  the  fifth  census,  563, 564.  Presidential  campaign  ; 
Democratic,  national  republican,  and  anti-masonic  nominations,  564.  Van  Bu- 
ren  elected,  565. 

CHAPTER  XLVI. 

UNITED    STATES    BANK. — BILL    VETOED. AFFAIRS    OF  THE    BANK  INVESTIGATED. 

Recharter  of  U.  S.  bank  applied  for,  566.  Dallas  and  McDuffie's  reports,  566. 
Veto,  567,  568.  Charges  against  the  bank,  569.  Reports  of  the  committee, 
569,  570.     Mr.  Adams'  report,  571-575. 

CHAPTER  XL VII. 

SOUTH    CAROLINA  NULLIFICATION. — JACKSOn's  PROCLAMATION. —  FORCE  BILL. 

CGJMPROMISE     TARIFF. —  PEACE. LAND     BILL. —  CLOSE     OF     JACKSON's     FIRST 

TERM. 

Soutli  Carolina  prepares  to  resist  the  general  government,  576,  577.  President 
Jackson's  proclamation,  577-581.  Nullification  act  of  South  Carolina  passed; 
Proclamation  denounced;  Military  preparations,  582,  The  president  autho- 
rized to  enforce  the  collection  of  duties,  583.  Mediation  of  Virginia,  583-585- 
686,  Clay's  compromise  tariff,  584,585.  "Force  bill"  passed,  585.  South 
Carolina  boasting,  586,587.  Clay's  land  bill  vetoed,  587.  New  bill,  689. 
Close  of  presidential  term,  590. 

CHAPTER  XL VIII. 

THE  BANK  CONTROVERSY. — REMOVAL  OF  DEPOSITS. — BANK  INVESTIGATION. 

Removal  of  the  deposits  from  the  bank  meditated,  591.  Inquiry  into  their  secu- 
rity, 592.  Appointment  of  Duane,  592.  President  Jackson's  charges,  692. 
Duane's  disobedience  and  removal,  594.  The  act  disapproved,.  595.  Contro- 
versy with  the  directors,  595-600. 

CHAPTER  XLIX. 

CONTINUATION    OF    THE    BANK    AND    DEPOSIT    QUESTION. CLAY's     RESOLUTIONS, 

AND  THE  president's  PROTEST. — POST  OFFICE  INVESTIGATION. 

Effects  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  600.  Reduction  of  bank  loans,  601.  Large 
drafts  on  the  bank,  601.  Parties  in  congress,  602.  House  debate,  602-605. 
Clay's  resolutions,  605-607.  President  refuses  to  answer  a  call,  606.  Mr. 
Benton's  resolution,  606.  President's  protest,  607.  Poindexter's  reply,  608. 
President's  explanatory  message,  609.  Poindexter's  resolutions  debated,  610. 
Reports  on  banks,  611,  612.  Adams'  resolutions,  618.  Dispute  about  pension 
agency,  613,  614.    Rejection  of  directors,  614,  615.     Post  office  abuses,  615,  616. 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  L. 

CABINET    CHANGES.— MISSION    TO    ENGLAND. —  BENTOn's    EXPUNGING    RESOLU- 
TION.— FRENCH  INDEMNITY. — POWER  OF  REMOVAL. — BRANCH  MINT. 

McLane's  resignation,  617.  Appointment  of  cabinet  officers,  617.  Rejection 
of  Stevenson,  617,  ei-S.  His  resignation  as  speaker;  Election  of  Bell,  619. 
Report  of  bank  committee,  619,  620.  Calhoun's  reports — a  deposit  bill,  620, 
Deposit  plan ;  Origin  of  sub-treasury,  620.  Benton's  expunging  resolution, 
621,  622.  French  spoliation  bill,  623.  Calhoun's  report  on  executive  patron- 
age, and  debate,  624-629.     Branch  mint,  629,  630. 

CHAPTER  LI. 

FRENCH    SPOLIATIONS. — PROSPECT    OF    WAR    WITH    FRANCE. DEBATE    ON    THE 

LOST    FORTIFICATION    BILL. 

Senate  report  on  French  spoliations,  630.  Adams'  proposition,  631.  Resentment 
of  the  French  government ;  Livingston's  return,  632.  The  three  million  appro- 
priation, 632-640.  France  demands  an  apology,  632.  President  Jackson  asks 
for  power  of  reprisals,  633.  Debate  on  the  message,  634,  635.  Benton's  pro- 
position of  defense,  635.     Debate  on  lost  fortification  bill,  635-640. 

CHAPTER  LII. 

THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  QUESTION. — DISCUSSION  IN  CONGRESS. INCENDIARY    PUBLI- 
CATIONS.  ATHERTOn's  RESOLUTIONS. 

Effects  of  anti-slavery  operations,  640.  Case  of  Williams ;  Rewards  for  aboli- 
tionists, 641.  Opposition  meetings  at  the  north,  641,  642.  Sentiments  of  the 
press,  642,  643.  Secession  and  non-intercourse  suggested,  643,  644.  Violation 
of  the  mails,  644, 645.  Anti-slavery  address,  645-648.  Action  of  congress  on 
petitions,  648-650.  Senate  mail  prohibition  bill,  650.  Bill  to  prohibit  the 
mailing  of  anti-slavery  papers,  650-653.     Atherton's  resolutions,  653,  654. 

CHAPTER  LIII. 

DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  SURPLUS  REVENUE. — DEATH  OF  MR.  MADISON. ADMIS- 
SION OF  ARKANSAS  AND  MICHIGAN  INTO  THE  UNION. — RECOGNITION  OF  THE 
INDEPENDENCE  OF  TEXAS. — CLAIMS  AGAINST  MEXICO. 

Mr.  Clay's  distribution  bill,  new  plan,  654-656.  Mr.  Madison's  death,  656. 
Admission  of  Arkansas  and  Michigan  as  states;  Long  debate,  656-661.  Inde- 
pendence of  Texas  recognized,  662-665.  Claims  against  Mexico ;  Authority 
for  reprisals  asked  for,  665. 

CHAPTER  LIV. 

SPECIE  CIRCULAR. — MEETING  OF  CONGRESS. RESOLUTION  TO  RESCIND  THE  CIR- 
CULAR.  VETO. —  BENTON's  EXPUNGING  RESOLUTION. PRESIDENTIAL  ELEC- 
TION. 

The  specie  circular  of  1836,  666,  667.  Meeting  of  congress ;  President's  mes- 
sage, 667,  668.  Ewing's  resolution  to  rescind  the  circular,  and  debate,  668- 
672.  Bill  passed,  and  vetoed,  672.  Mr.  Benton's  expunging  resolution  renew- 
ed, 673.  Debate,  and  passage  of  the  resolution,  674-676.  Election  of  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  676,677. 


CONTENTS.  XV 

CHAPTER  LV. 

MR.     VAN     BUREN's     INAUGURATION. SPECIAL     SESSION     OF     CONGRESS. SUB- 
TREASURY. — OTHER  FINANCIAL  MEASURES. 

Inauguration  of  Mr.  Van  Buren;  Address,  677.  State  of  the  country;  Specie 
payments  suspended,  678,  679.  Congress  specially  convened,  679.  Sub- 
treasury  and  other  bills  proposed,  680.  Debate  on  the  bill  to  postpone  the 
deposits,  681-684.  On  the  treasury  note  bill,  684-687.  Sub-treasury  bill- 
lost,  687, 688.     Anti-slavery  and  Florida  war  propositions,  688. 

CHAPTER  LVT. 

INDEPENDENT  TREASURY. AGAIN  DEFEATED. TALLMADGE's  SPEECH. INCIDEN- 
TAL DEBATE  BETWEEN  CLAY,  CALHOUN,  AND  WEBSTER, — SPECIE  CIRCULAR  RE- 
PEALED. 

Sub-treasury  bill— again  defeated,  689-690.  Speech  of  Mr.  Tallmadge,  690-693. 
Personal  debate  between  Messrs.  Clay,  Calhoun,  and  Webster,  693-702. 
Virtual  repeal  of  the  specie  circular,  702. 


CHAPTER  LVII. 

ANNEXATION     OF     TEXAS. — SPEECHES     OF    PRESTON    AND    ADAMS. PROPOSITION 

WITHDRAWN  BY  TEXAS. 

Mr.  Preston's  resolutions  for  annexing  Texas,  703.  His  speech,  704-709. 
Speech  of  Mr.  Adams  against  annexation,  709-712,  Texas  withdraws  her 
proposition,  712. 

CHAPTER  LVIII. 

"  PATRIOT    WAR." AFFAIR    OF    THE    CAROLINE. — TRIAL    OF  m'kENZIE  AND  VAN 

RENSSELAER. TRIAL  OF  m'lEOD. 

Insurrection  in  Upper  Canada,  712,  Affair  of  the  Caroline,  713.  Facts  relating 
to  the  war,  714.  Trials  of  M'Kenzie  and  M'Leod,  714-717.  M'Leod  case  in 
congress,  717-722,    Legislature  of  New  York,  722. 


CHAPTER  LIX. 

THE    SLAVE    SCHOONER     AMISTAD. CAPTIVES     LIBERATED. MEETING    OF     THE 

TWENTY-SIXTH  CONGRESS. SEATS  OF    THE  NEW  JERSEY  MEMBERS  CONTEST- 
ED.  FLORIDA  WAR. 

Capture  of  the  Amistad.  723.  Demand  for  the  surrender  of  the  slaves — resisted, 
723.  Judicial  investigation,  723-726.  Interposition  of  the  British  government, 
726,  727.  Division  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  727.  The  26th 
congress — great  contest  for  seats,  728-732.  Sub-treasury  established,  732. 
War  with  the  Seminole  Indians,  733. 


XVI  *     CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  LX. 

PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION    OF    1S40.  — CLAIMS    ON  MEXICO. CLOSE  OF  MR.  VAN 

BUREN's  ADMINISTRATION. 

Presidential  nominations,  735.  Pecuniary  condition  of  the  country,  735,  736. 
Measures  to  promote  the  election,  736-737.  Mr.  Tyler  and  his  party,  737. 
Harrison  and  Tyler  elected,  738.  Claims  on  Mexico,  738.  Close  of  Mr.  "Van 
Buren's  term,  739. 

CHAPTER  LXI. 

INAUGURATION    OF    GENERAL    HARRISON. — HIS    DEATH. INAUGURATION    OF    MR. 

TYLER. EXTRA  SESSION  OF  CONGRESS. BANK  VETOES. DISSOLUTION  OF  THE 

CABINET. 

President  Harrison  inaugurated,  740.  Address,  740-744.  His  cabinet,  744. 
He  convenes  congress  ;  His  death,  744.  Mr.  Tyler's  inaugural,  745.  Special 
session  of  congress,  746.  Sub-treasury  repealed  ;  Bank  prepared,  747.  Mr. 
Tyler's  veto  of  bank  bills,  748.  A  new  bill  proposed,  passed,  and  vetoed,  749. 
Resignation  of  cabinet  officers,  749.  Statements  of  the  retiring  officers,  749- 
753.  Botts'  letter,  753.  Webster's,  754.  New  cabinet  appointments  ;  Whig 
address,  754,  755.     Bankrupt,  distribution,  and  loan  bills  passed,  756. 

CHAPTER  LXII. 

PETITION  FOR  A  DISSOLUTION  OF  THE  UNION. — ATTEMPT  TO  CENSURE    MR  ADAMS. 
CENSURE  OF  MR.  GIDDINGS. 

Mr,  Adams  and  the  dissolution  of  the  union,  756-758.     Resolutions  of  censure 
and  expulsion   proposed,  758.    Debate  on  the  same,  758-766.     Mr.  Giddings 
presents  a  petition  for  dividing  the  union,  766.     Case  of  the  brig  Creole,  766 
768.     Mr.  Giddings'  resolutions,  768.     Censured  by  the  house,  769,  770.    His 
resignation  and  re-election,  770. 


CHAPTER  LXIII. 

THE    TARIFF    OF    1842. PRESIDENTIAL    VETOES. BRITISH    COLONIAL    TRADE. 

NORTH-EASTERN  BOUNDARY  QUESTION  SETTLED. 

Report  on  the  tariff,  770-774.  Minority  report,  774-778.  The  revenue  bill  of 
the  secretary  of  the  treasury  reported,  778,  779.  Bill  with  a  proviso  against 
the  suspension  of  the  distribution  act,  779.  Vetoed  by  Mr.  Tyler,  780.  De- 
bate on  veto,  780-782.  The  revenue  bill  passed  and  vetoed,  782.  Report  on 
veto,  782,  783.  Bill  without  the  distribution  proviso  passed,  783.  A  distribu- 
on  bill  defeated  by  the  president,  784.  Petition  relating  to  West  India  trade, 
784.     North-eastern  boundary  question  settled,  784-786. 


CONTENTS.  XVll 

CHAPTER  LXIV. 

ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS. — THE    PROJECT    DEFEATED. — DEATH  OF   SECRETARIES 
UPSHUR  Al^D  GILMER. 

Southern  views  of  annexation,  786.  Annexation  movements,  787.  Treaty  cor- 
respondence, 787-790.  Treaty  rejected,  790.  Secret  debate  on  the  treaty, 
790-793.  Mr.  Benton's  annexation  bill,  793,  794.  Debate  on  the  same,  794- 
798.  Mr.  Tyler's  message  to  the  house,  798.  Explosion  on  the  Princeton, 
and  death  of  secretaries  Upshur  and  Gilmer,  799. 

CHAPTER  LXV. 

THE  PRESIDENTIAL   CAMPAIGN   OF   1844. 

Messrs.  Clay  and  Van  Buren's  letters  on  annexation,  799-808.  Baltimore  con- 
ventions— nomination  of  Clay  and  Polk,  809.  Mr.  Clay's  position,  810.  Oregon 
and  Texas  resolution  at  Baltimore,  810,  811,  Confidential  circular  of  protest- 
ing democrats,  811-813.    Election  of  Mr.  Polk,  814. 

CHAPTER  LXVI. 

TERRITORIAL    GOVERNMENT    OF    OREGON. —  ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS. FLORIDA 

AND  IOWA  ADMITTED. — UNIFORM  TIME  OF  CHOOSING  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTORS. 
REDUCTION  OF  POSTAGE. 

Bill  to  establish  a  government  for  Oregon,  815.  Senate  bills  for  the  annexation 
of  Texas,  816,  817.  House  bill  passed,  817, 818.  Votes  classified,  818.  House 
bill  in  the  senate,  818.  Mr.  Benton's  bill,  819.  Debate  on  annexation,  819, 
Mr.  Benton's  resolutions,  with  Mr.  Walker's  amendment,  adopted,  820,  821, 
Opinions  on  annexation,  822-825.  Objects  of  annexation,  825-828.  Mr.  Ben- 
ton's Boonville  speech,  825, 826.  Southern  sentiment,  827.  Nashville  conven- 
tion, 827,  828.  Effect  of  tariff  on  prices,  828-830.  Effects  of  annexation,  830. 
Florida  and  Iowa  admitted,  831.  Act  in  relation  to  choosing  presidential 
electors,  831,    Postage  act,  831. 

CHAPTER  LXVII. 

INAUGURATION   OF   MR.   POLK. — DEATH   OF  GEN.  JACKSON. — WAR  WITH  MXXICO. 
TREATY  OF  PEACE. 

Mr.  Polk's  inauguration  and  address,  831,  832.  His  cabinet,  832.  Death  of  Gen. 
Jackson,  832.  Difficulties  with  Mexico,  833-835.  Army  ordered  to  the  Rio 
Grande,  835.  War  message,  836,  Adoption  of  war  measures,  836.  G.  Davis' 
speech,  837,  838.  Effects  of  the  war,  838.  Two  millions  bill  and  Wilmot  pro- 
viso, 839.  President's  message,  840,  Santa  Anna's  pass  and  return  to  Mexico, 
841.  Treasury  note,  and  loan  bill,  841.  Objects  of  the  war ;  Calhoun  and 
Benton,  842-844.  Clayton's  disclosure,  844,  845.  A  moral  question,  845-847. 
Rhett's  theory  on  war  power,  847.    Treaty  of  peace,  848. 


XVlll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  LXVIII. 

THE    OREGON    QUESTION. 

Negotiation  commenced,  849.  Position  of  the  administration,  849-851.  Nego- 
tiation abandoned  ;  Various  propositions,  851-853.  Mr.  Adams'  speech,  853-' 
855.  Debate  continued,  854-860.  Excitement  in  England,  8G0.  Propositions 
to  "  give  notice,'*'  860-863.  Apprehensions  of  war  revived,  860, 861.  Debate  in 
the  senate,  861-863.    Mr.  Benton  on  the  boundary,  863-865. 

CHAPTER  LXIX, 

THE  TARIFF  ACT  OF  1846. — THE  WAREHOUSE  SYSTExM. — ESTABLISHMENT  OF    THE 

SUB-TREASURY. 

Attack  upon  the  tariff  of  1842 ;  President's  message,  865-867.  Secretary's  re- 
port, 867, 868.  Mr.  Stewart's  reply,  868-871.  Bill  reported,  871.  Mr.  Brin- 
kerhoof  s  speech,  872.  Bill  amended  and  passed,  872,  873.  Warehouse  act, 
873.     Sub-treasury  re-established,  874. 

CHAPTER  LXX. 

PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1848. ELECTION  OF  GEN.  TAYLOR. 

General  Taylor  and  the  presidency,  874-876.  Nominations  of  Gen.  Cass  and  Gen. 
Taylor,  876-878.    Proceedings  in  the  whig  convention,  878, 879.    Allison  letter, 

879.  Utica  and  Buffalo  conventions  ;  Nomination  of  Van  Buren  and  Adams, 

880,  881.     Gen.   Cass'  letter  to  Nicholson,  881,  882.     Gen.  Taylor's  letters  ; 
Albany  meeting ;  His  election,  882, 883. 

CHAPTER  LXXI. 

BILLS    FOR    CALIFORNIA   AND   OTHER   TERRITORIAL    GOVERNMENTS. 

Territorial  government  for  Oregon ;  Dix  and  Calhoun,  884-886.  Mr.  Clayton's 
bill,  886-888.  Oregon  bill  passed,  888.  Territorial  government  bills — again 
unsuccessful,  888-891.     Department  of  the  interior  established,  891. 

CHAPTER  LXXII. 

INAUGURATION  OF  PRESIDENT  TAYLOR. CONTEST  FOR  THE  CHOICE  OF  SPEAKER. 

— COMPROMISE  OF  1850. 

Gen.  Taylor  inaugurated ;  His  cabinet,  892.  Congress  meets  ;  Long  contest  for 
speaker,  893.  Message,  894.  Mr.  Foote's  territorial  bill,  894.  Mr.  Clay's 
resolutions,  895.  Opposed  by  southern  senators,  895-899.  "Webster's  speech, 
899-902.  California  state  constitution  received ;  Debate  on  admission,  902,  903. 
Mr.  Bell's  resolutions;  Committee  of  thirteen;  Their  report,  903,  904.  Defeat 
of  the  "  omnibus,"  904.  Mr.  Benton's  speech,  905-909.  Death  of  President 
Taylor,  910.  Mr.  Fillmore's  accession ;  His  cabinet,  910.  Controversy  with 
Texas,  910,  911.     Passage  of  compromise  bills,  911,912. 


CONTENTS.  XIX 

CHAPTER  LXXIII. 

THI    COMPROMISE    OF    1850,    CONTINUED. — SPEECHES    OF    MESSRS.    SEWARD     AND 

CASS. 

Speech  of  Mr.  Seward  on  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  912-930.  Speech 
Of  Mr.  Cass,  930-937.    Death  of  Messrs.  Calhoun,  Clay,  and  Webster,  937. 

CHAPTER  LXXIV. 

PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1852. — INAUGURATION  OF  MR.  PIERCE. 

National  conventions  of  1852,  937.  Nomination  of  Pierce  and  King,  and  of  Scott 
and  Graham,  937,  938.  Platforms  of  the  parties,  938,  939.  Election  of  Gen. 
Pierce  ;  His  inauguration,  939-940. 

CHAPTER  LXXV. 

THE  TERRITORIAL  GOVERNMENTS  OF  KANSAS  AND  NEBRASKA. 

Congress  meets,  December,  1853 ;  Election  of  speaker,  940.  President's  mes- 
sage, 940,  941.  Re-agitation  of  the  slavery  question,  941.  Propositions  to 
establish  a  territorial  government  for  Nebraska,  941.  Mr.  Douglas  proposes 
a  division  of  the  territory ;  His  speech,  942-944.  Mr.  Chase's  speech,  944r- 
950.  Mr.  Houston's  speech,  960.  Messrs.  Badger  and  Cass,  951, 952.  Bill  passed, 
952. 

APPENDIX. 

Declaration  of  Independence 958 

Articles  of  Confederation 959 

ConBtitution  of  the  United  States 966 

Notes : 977 

Statistics 996 

Index 1004 


VXXJ,-li;:i=:^i^H: 


v:Mv!;an^i 


*        »  *       "    • 


THE 

AMEEICAN   STATESMAN. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    SETTLEMENT  OF    THE  COLONIES,  AND    THEIR.    FORMS   OF  GOVERNMENT. 

The  establisliment  of  republican  institutions  in  this  country  consti- 
tutes a  new  era  in  the  history  of  civil  government.  To  America  belongs 
the  honor  of  having  presented  to  the  world  the  first  system  of  consti- 
tutional government  founded  upon  political  equality  and  the  general 
consent  of  the  people.  Most  governments  had  been  the  creatures  of 
accident,  or  of  the  concurrence  of  unforeseen  events,  rather  than  the 
result  of  design.  Liberty  was  enjoyed  only  as  it  had  been  wrested  from 
the  grasp  of  tyranny,  or  as  it  had  been  reluctantly  granted  to  silence  the 
popular  clamor,  or  to  prevent  rebellion.  Chartered  governments,  called 
republics,  had  indeed  existed ;  but  they  conferred  only  a  partial  fran- 
chise and  limited  civil  privileges.  The  political  system  of  the  United 
States  is  the  result  of  forethought  and  mature  deliberation,  and  derives 
its  authority  from  the  true  source  of  power,  the  whole  people  :  and  its 
crowning  excellence — its  chief  conservative  principle — is  its  recognition 
of  the  paramount  authority  of  the  Divine  will. 

Constitutional  liberty  based  upon  these  principles,  is  of  a  date  long 
anterior  to  that  of  our  national  or  any  state  constitution  formed  since 
the  establishment  of  our  national  independence.  It  had  its  origin  in  the 
cabin  of  the  Mayflower  before  the  pilgrim  immigrants  had  effected  their 
landing.  The  constituent  elements  of  the  "  compact,"  then  and  there 
formed,  were  early  introduced  into  the  governments  of  the  colonies,  espe- 
cially those  of  New  England. 

Of  the  forms  of  government  which  prevailed  in  the  colonies,  there 
were  three :  the  charter,  the  royal  or  provincial,  and  the  proprietary 
governments. 


22  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

The   charter  governments   existed   only   in    New   England.     These 

chiirt^rs,  or  grants  of  the  crown,  conferred  on  the  colonists  not  only  a 

right  to  the  soil,  but  the  privileges  of  natural  born  subjects.     They 

^  fleeted  their  own  governors  and  legislative  assemblies,  and  established 

'  courts  of  justice.     The  legislative  power  was  ample,  its  only  limitation 

was,  that  the  laws  enacted  should  not  be  contrary  to  those  of  England. 

During  the  attempts  of  the  British  Government,  in  the  reign  of  Charleg 
I,  to  enforce  conformity  to  the  established  church,  a  number  of  people, 
to  avoid  prosecution  under  these  laws,  and  to  enjoy  freedom  of  conscience 
in  matters  of  religion,  removed  to  Holland.  In  1619,  these  persons 
determined  to  remove  to  North  America ;  and  in  the  following  year  they 
embarked  on  a  voyage  with  a  design  of  settlement  on  the  Hudson,  within 
the  limits  of  the  London,  or  South  Virginia  company,  and  for  this  pur- 
pose they  had  obtained  a  charter  from  this  company.  But  by  accident, 
as  some  suppose,  or,  as  is  generally  believed,  by  the  treachery  of  the 
Dutch,  who  themselves  had  contemplated  settling  on  the  Hudson,  and 
who  bribed  the  pilot  to  land  them  north  of  the  Hudson,  they  were  taken 
to  the  coast  of  Cape  Cod,  where  they  arrived  on  the  9th  of  November, 
1620.  The  story  of  their  having  been  carried  thither  against  their 
wishes  or  intention,  rests,  however,  on  doubtful  authority.  They  were 
called  Puritans,  a  name  given  to  those  who  dissented  from  the  established 
church  because  they  wished  for  a  purer  form  of  discipline  and  worship  ; 
some  of  the  ancient  Bomish  ceremonies  being  still  continued  in  that 
church. 

Not  having  contemplated  any  plantation  within  the  limits  of  the  Ply- 
mouth company,  they  had  not  obtained  from  them  any  charter.  Being 
therefore  destitute  of  any  right  to  the  soil,  and  without  any  powers  of 
government  derived  from  the  proper  authority,  on  the  1 1th  of  November, 
before  they  landed,  they  drew  up  and  signed  the  following  compact,  or 
constitution : 

"  In  the  name  of  Grod,  amen. — We,  whose  names  are  under-written, 
the  loyal  subjects  of  our  dread  sovereign  lord  King  James,  &c.,  having 
undertaken,  for  the  glory  of  Grod,  the  advancement  of  the  Christian  faith, 
and  honor  of  our  king  and  country,  a  voyage  to  plant  the  first  colony  in 
the  northern  parts  of  Virginia,  do  by  these  presents,  solemnly  and 
mutually,  iu  the  presence  of  God,  and  of  one  another,  covenant  and  com- 
bine ourselves  together  into  a  civil  body  politic,  for  our  better  ordering 
and  preservation,  and  furtherance  of  the  ends  aforesaid ;  and  by  virtue 
hereof  do  enact,  constitute  and  frame,  such  just  and  equal  laws,  ordi- 
nances, acts,  constitutions,  and  offices,  from  time  to  time,  as  shall  be 
thought  most  meet  and  convenient  for  the  good  of  the  colony;  unto 
which  we  promise  all  due  submission  and  obedience." 


SETTLEMENT   OF    THE    COLONIES.  23 

This  was  the  earliest  American  constitution,  and  in  substance  a  pure 
democracy.  It  was  signed  by  41  persons.  The  whole  company,  in- 
cluding women  and  children,  numbered  101. 

Having  settled  a  social  contract,  they  proceeded  to  examine  the  coast^ 
and  finally  determined  to  settle  at  a  place  which  they  called  Plymouth,  after 
the  name  of  the  company  owning  the  soil.  They  landed  on  the  23d  of 
December,  and  commenced  the  first  permanent  settlement  in  New  Eng- 
land. For  ten  years,  the  colonists  held  their  property  in  common,  when 
they  obtained  from  the  company  a  grant  of  the  land.  The  government 
of  the  colony  was  administered  by  a  governor  and  seven  assistants,  all 
chosen  by  the  people  annually.  Being  a  pure  democracy,  the  people, 
in  general  meeting,  often  decided  upon  both  legislative  and  executive 
affairs.  In  1639,  their  numbers  having  become  such  as  to  render  delib 
eration  in  full  assembly  inconvenient,  the  representative  system  was 
adopted. 

In  1628,  the  Massachusetts  colony  was  settled  by  a  company,  (also 
Puritans,)  incorporated  by  royal  charter,  the  land  having  been  previously 
purchased  of  the  Plymouth  company.  In  1630,  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment were  transferred  from  the  crown  to  the  colonists,  who  had  power 
to  elect  annually  a  governor,  a  deputy-governor,  and  eighteen  assistants. 
In  1634,  the  people  claimed  the  right  of  representation,  which,  though 
unauthorized  by  the  charter,  was  generally  assented  to ;  and  two  or 
three  deputies  were  chosen  from  each  plantation,  to  represent  the  people 
in  the  general  court.  The  governor,  or,  in  his  absence,  the  deputy- 
governor,  the  assistants,  or  at  least  six  of  them,  and  the  body  of  freemen, 
constituted  a  general  court,  by  which  the  powers  of  government  were  to 
be  exercised.  The  claiming  by  the  former,  (the  assistants,)  of  a  right  to 
negative  the  acts  of  the  latter,  caused  frequent  disputes  between  them, 
until  1644,  when  by  mutual  agreement,  the  legislature  was  to  consist  of 
two  separate  bodies,  having  a  negative  upon  each  other. 

In  New  Hampshire  the  first  permanent  settlement  was  made  in  1631, 
at  and  near  Portsmouth,  although  a  few  huts  had  been  erected  a  few 
years  earlier,  by  fishermen,  along  the  coast  eastward  from  Merrimack. 
No  organized  government  seems  to  have  been  established  until  several 
years  afterward;  and  in  1641,  Massachusetts,  having  previously  asserted 
a  right  over  this  part  of  the  territory,  declared  the  inhabitants  to  be 
within  her  jurisdiction,  leaving  them,  however,  to  participate  in  all  their 
rights,  and  exempting  them  from  all  public  charges,  except  such  as 
should  arise  on  their  own  account.  After  a  temporary  protection  from 
Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire  became  an  independent  colony. 

Connecticut  was  settled  in  1635,  by  persons  from  Massachusetts. 
The  colonists  were  for  several  years  governed  by  magistrates  appointed 


84  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

bj  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  with  the  advice  of  committees  from 
the  towns,  with  whom  they  were  associated  on  important  occasions.  But, 
not  being  within  the  limits  of  the  charter  of  Massachusetts,  they  formed, 
in  1639,  a  government  for  themselves.  The  settlements  were  at  this 
time  confined  to  three  towns,  Hartford,  Wethersfield,  and  Windsor,  con- 
taining a  population  of  about  800.  By  this  constitution,  the  legislative 
power  was  vested  in  the  general  assembly,  consisting  of  a  governor,  six 
magistrates,  and  the  representatives  of  the  towns,  all  of  whom  were 
elected  annually  by  the  great  body  of  freemen.  The  governor  was 
chosen  from  the  magistrates  :  he  presided  in  the  assembly,  and  had  a 
casting  vote. 

These  colonists,  like  those  of  the  Plymouth  colony,  were  many  years 
without  a  charter,  holding  the  soil  by  mere  occupancy,  except  such  por- 
tions as  they  acquired  by  purchase  or  conquest  of  the  natives,  and  being 
governed  by  themselves.  In  1662,  a  charter  was  granted  by  Charles  II.) 
which  adopted  the  most  essential  parts  of  their  free  constitution.  In 
1698,  the  general  assembly  was  divided  into  two  branches.  The  magis- 
trates or  assistants,  with  the  governor  as  president,  constituted  the  upper 
house  ;  and  the  representatives  the  lower  house ;  and  each  had  a  nega- 
tive on  the  acts  of  the  other. 

The  colony  of  New  Haven  was  settled  in  1637,  by  a  small  company 
of  persons  from  England.  The  people  of  this  colony  also,  having  no 
charter,  formed  themselves  into  a  body  politic,  and  established  a  form 
of  civil  and  church  government.  The  government  was  administered  by 
a  governor  and  a  few  magistrates.  These  and  other  officers  were  elected 
by  those  only  who  were  in  church  fellowship.  In  1643,  representatives 
from  the  towns  were  associated  with  the  governor  and  magistrates  in  the 
general  court,  as  in  Connecticut,  with  which  it  became  united  in  the 
charter  of  1662. 

Rhode  Island  was  settled  at  the  same  time  as  Connecticut.  Roger 
Williams,  a  minister  at  Salem,  in  Massachusetts,  for  teaching  what  were 
regarded  by  his  brethren  as  erroneous  religious  doctrines,  was  banished 
from  the  colonies,  and  with  a  few  followers,  commenced  a  settlement  at 
Providence.  In  the  civil  compact,  they  agreed  "  to  submit  themselves  in 
active  and  passive  obedience,  to  all  such  orders  and  agreements  as  should 
be  made  for  the  public  good  of  the  body,  in  an  orderly  way,  by  major 
consent  of  the  inhabitants."  In  1640,  a  plan  of  government  better 
adapted  to  their  circumstances,  was  adopted.  The  Providence  and 
Rhode  Island  plantations  were  at  first  two  distinct  colonies.  The  set- 
tlement at  Rhode  Island  was  the  result  of  a  cause  similar  to  that  which 
led  to  the  settlement  of  Providence.  In  1638,  a  number  of  the  most 
prominent  advocates  and  propagators  of  the  Antinomian  heresy,  which 


SETTLEMENT    OF    THE    COLONIES.  25 

arose  about  tliat  time  in  Massachusetts,  were  ordered  to  leave  the  colony^ 
and  having,  by  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Williams,  purchased  the  island  ol* 
the  Indians,  commenced  a  settlement,  having  entered  into  the  following 
compact,  signed  by  eighteen  persons: 

"  We,  whose  names  are  underwritten,  do  hereby  solemnly,  in  the  pre- 
sence of  Jehovah,  incorporate  ourselves  into  a  body  politic,  and  as  He 
shall  help,  will  submit  our  persons,  lives,  and  estates,  unto  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords,  and  to  all  those  per- 
fect and  absolute  laws  of  his,  given  in  his  Holy  Word  of  truth,  to  be 
judged  and  guided  thereby." 

The  ruling  power  was  subsequently  vested  in  a  governor,  a  deputy- 
governor,  and  five  assistants.  And  in  1641,  the  government  was  de- 
clared to  be  a  democracy,  and  the  power  to  be  in  the  body  of  freemen, 
orderly  assembled,  or  a  major  part  of  them,  to  make  or  constitute  just 
laws,  and  to  depute  from  among  them  such  ministers  as  should  see  them 
faithfully  executed.  And  none  were  to  be  accounted  delinquent  for  doc- 
trine, provided  it  were  not  directly  repugnant  to  the  established  govern- 
ment and  laws. 

In  1644,  the  two  plantations  were  united  in  a  charter  obtained  by 
Roger  Williams,  who  had  been  sent  to  England  for  that  purpose.  The 
charter  granted  to  the  inhabitants  "  full  power  and  authority  to  rule 
themselves,  by  such  a  form  of  civil  government,  as  by  voluntary  consent 
of  all,  or  the  greater  part  of  them,  they  shall  find  most  suitable  to  their 
estate  and  condition ;  and  to  make  and  ordain  such  civil  laws  and  consti- 
tutions, and  to  inflict  such  punishments  upon  transgressors,  and  for  the 
execution  thereof  so  to  place  and  displace  officers  of  justice,  as  they,  or 
the  greater  part  of  them,  should  by  free  consent  agree  thereto."  All 
laws,  however,  must,  as  nearly  as  might  be,  conform  to  those  of  England. 
The  government  established  under  this  charter  was  a  pure  democracy. 
There  was  a  legislative  body  called  a  court  of  commissioners,  consisting 
of  six  persons  from  each  town  ;  but  their  acts  were  subject  to  repeal  by 
the  votes  of  the  freemen  of  each  town.  All  judicial  officers,  and  officers 
to  manage  town  afi'airs,  were  elected  by  popular  suffrage.  This  charter 
was  granted  in  the  time  of  the  contest  between  the  king  and  parliament, 
and  while  the  latter  had  the  supremacy,  and  continued  until  after  the 
restoration  of  the  kingdom  to  Charles  II,  by  whom  a  new  charter  was 
granted  in  1663. 

In  1643,  the  colonies  of  Massachusetts,  Plymouth,  Connecticut,  and 
New  Haven,  formed  a  league,  or  confederation,  by  the  name  of  "  The 
United  Colonies  of  New  England,"  for  their  mutual  protection  against 
the  Indians,  and  against  the  Dutch  at  Manhattan.  By  the  terms  of  this 
union,  the  internal  affairs  of  each  colony  were  left  to  its  own  government. 


26  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

In  war,  each  was  to  furnish  its  proportion  of  men,  according  to  its  popu- 
lation ;  and  the  common  affairs  of  the  confederacy  were  to  be  conducted 
by  a  congress  composed  of  two  commissioners  from  each  colony.  In  its 
most  essential  provisions,  it  resembled,  and  probably  afterwards  sug- 
gested, that  more  celebrated  confederation  of  the  thirteen  independent 
states,  which  was  formed  for  their  mutual  defense  during  the  war  of  the 
revolution. 

During  the  civil  wars  of  England,  while  the  government  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  republican  parliament,  and  afterwards  under  the  protector- 
ate of  Cromwell,  the  most  friendly  feelings  subsisted  between  the  colon- 
ists and  the  ruling  power  of  the  parent  country.  The  acts  of  parlia- 
ment were  highly  favorable  to  the  colonists.  The  navigation  act,  [else- 
where described,]  was  not  enforced  against  them ;  and  the  goods 
imported  from,  and  those  exported  to  Europe,  were  exempted  from 
duties.  And  even  the  charters  granted  by  Charles  II,  soon  after  his 
restoration  to  the  throne,  secured  to  the  colonists  the  right  of  self- 
government. 

The  royal^  or  provincial  governments,  were  those  of  Virginia,  New 
York,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  the  Carolinas,  and  Georgia.  The 
Carolinas,  and  the  Jerseys,  (there  being  East  and  West  Jersey,)  were  at 
first  under  proprietary  governments ;  but  at  a  later  period,  the  Carolinas 
(1728)  and  New  Jersey  (1702)  came  under  royal  charters,  which  con- 
tinued until  the  Revolution.  In  the  royal  governments,  the  power  was 
vested  in  a  governor  and  council,  appointed  by  the  crown,  and  a  repre- 
sentative assembly  chosen  by  the  people.  These  governments  were  called 
royal,  because  they  derived  all  their  powers  directly  from  the  king. 
The  governors  held  their  offices  at  his  pleasure,  and  acted  under  his  in- 
structions. The  council,  besides  constituting  one  branch  of  the  legis- 
lature, in  which  they  had  a  negative  on  the  acts  of  the  other,  acted  also 
in  an  executive  capacity,  as  advisers  of  the  governor.  The  governors 
had  power  to  negative  the  acts  of  both  houses ;  and  all  acts,  though 
approved  by  him,  must  be  submitted  to  the  king  and  receive  his  approval, 
before  they  could  have  the  effect  of  laws.  The  judges  also,  and  most  of 
the  other  officers,  were  appointed  by  the  king,  and  held  their  offices  at 
his  pleasure. 

Virginia  was  settled  in  1607,  by  a  colony  of  100  persons  sent  out  by 
the  London  company.  This  was  the  earliest  permanent  settlement  made 
within  the  country. 

The  affairs  of  the  colony  were  at  first  managed  by  a  governor  and 
council  appointed  by  the  company.  In  1619,  a  great  change  was  made 
in  the  government  of  the  colony.  A  general  assembly,  the  first  that 
was  held  in  America,  was  called  by  the  governor.     This  assembly  cou- 


SETTLEMENT    OF    THE    COLONIES.  27 

sisted  of  "  two  burgesses  chosen  from  every  town,  hundred,  and  planta- 
tion, by  the  inhabitants,  to  decide,  conjointly  with  the  governor  and 
council,  by  the  greatest  majority  of  voices,  in  all  matters  of  concern 
relating  to  the  colony."  Eleven  boroughs  were  represented  in  the  con- 
vention. The  government  was  now  established  on  the  plan  of  that  of 
England,  the  governor,  council,  and  assembly,  corresponding  to  the 
king,  lords,  and  commons.  In  1621,  by  an  ordinance  of  the  company, 
two  councils  were  constituted,  one  a  council  of  state,  appointed  by  the 
company,  to  assist  the  governor ;  the  other  a  legislative  council,  com- 
posed of  the  council  of  state,  and  the  burgesses,  and  called  the  gen- 
eral assembly.  A  negative  upon  the  acts  of  the  assembly  was  reserved 
to  the  governor ;  and  no  act  was  to  have  force  until  confirmed  by  the 
company  in  Europe ;  nor  were  any  orders  from  the  company  to  bind  the 
colony,  until  ratified  by  the  general  assembly. 

The  displeasure  of  the  king  (James  I)  having  been  excited  by  the 
establishment  of  so  popular  a  form  of  government,  he  demanded  of 
the  company  a  surrender  of  their  charter.  Compliance  with  this  demand 
being  refused  by  the  company,  a  writ  of  quo  ivarranto  was  issued,  (1624,) 
and  judgment  rendered  against  the  company.  The  charter  was  declared 
forfeit,  the  company  was  dissolved,  and  all  its  powers  revested  in  the  crown. 

The  government  having  been  taken  into  royal  hands,  the  king  issued 
a  special  commission,  appointing  a  governor  and  twelve  councillors  to 
direct  the  afi'airs  of  the  colony.  James  died  soon  after,  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Charles  I,  who  was  not  more  friendly  to  the  late  popular  sys- 
tem of  government  than  his  father.  He  devolved  upon  the  governor  and 
council  the  whole  legislative  and  executive  powers  of  the  colony,  with 
instructions  to  conform  strictly  to  all  orders  they  should  receive  from 
him.  They  were  authorized  to  levy  taxes  ;  to  seize  the  property  of  the 
late  company,  and  to  apply  it  to  public  use ;  and  to  transport  colonists 
to  England,  to  be  punished  for  crimes  committed  in  Virginia.  In  addi- 
tion to  this,  a  monopoly  of  the  tobacco  trade  was  secured,  by  requiring 
the  whole  of  that  article  to  be  shipped  to  England,  and  delivered  to 
agents  of  the  king. 

Under  the  pressure  of  these  arbitrary  regulations,  rendered  more 
secure  by  the  cruelty  with  which  the  governor  (Sir  John  Harvey)  exer- 
cised his  powers,  the  colonists,  in  1636,  after  a  peaceable  submission  for 
several  years  to  his  authority,  seized  the  governor,  and  sent  him  a  pris- 
oner to  England,  accompanied  by  two  of  their-  number  to  represent  their 
grievances.  Displeased  with  this  act  of  violence,  without  giving  the 
deputies  a  hearing,  the  king  sent  Harvey  back  to  Virginia,  reinvested 
with  his  former  powers. 

Soon  after  this  occurrence,  Charles,  probably  apprehending  that  the 


28  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

complaints  of  the  colonists  would  be  brought  before  his  parliament, 
which,  after  an  intermission  of  seven  years,  he  was  about  to  reassemble  ; 
and  that  these  complaints  would  be  regarded  as  evidence  of  his  arbitrary 
disposition,  and  serve  to  increase  the  discontent  which  his  despotic  rule 
had  excited  among  his  subjects  at  home,  suddenly  changed  his  conduct 
towards  the  colonists.  Sir  William  Berkeley,  a  gentleman  possessing  a 
character  the  opposite  of  that  of  Harvey,  was  appointed  to  succeed  the 
latter  as  governor,  and  directed  to  restore  to  the  people  the  right  of 
representation,  by  issuing  writs  for  the  election  of  burgesses  from  the 
plantations,  who,  with  the  governor  and  council,  were  to  constitute  the 
general  assembly. 

Berkeley,  who  continued  to  administer  the  government  until  after  the 
downfall  and  execution  of  Charles,  had,  by  his  mild  administration, 
rendered  both  himself  and  royal  family  highly  popular.  The  house  of 
commons,  having  become  established  in  power,  claimed  the  right  to  con- 
trol the  affairs  of  the  colony,  and  passed  an  ordinance  in  1650,  declaring 
the  people  of  Virginia  and  other  places  in  a  state  of  rebellion,  and  pro- 
hibiting all  trade  with  the  English  settlements  in  America.  In  pursuance 
of  authority  granted  by  the  act,  the  council  of  state  sent  to  Virginia  an 
armed  force  to  bring  the  colonists  to  obedience.  Commissioners  also 
were  sent,  authorized  to  offer  to  the  inhabitants,  as  a  condition  of  their 
submission,  the  liberty  to  "  choose  such  burgesses  as  they  should  think 
fit,  for  the  better  regulating  and  governing  of  affairs  ;"  provided  nothing 
should  be  done  contrary  to  the  government  and  laws  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  England.  The  squadron  entered  the  Bay  of  Chesapeake  in 
1651,  but  Berkeley,  unable  to  make  successful  resistance  to  superior 
force,  capitulated ;  on  terms,  however,  which  were  favorable  to  the 
colonists, 

During  the  supremacy  of  the  parliament  and  Cromwell,  the  Virginians 
enjoyed  the  right  of  self-government  and  free  trade.  The  governor, 
councillors,  and  other  officers,  were  chosen  by  the  burgesses  or  grand 
assembly.  Their  submission  to  the  commonwealth  of  England,  however, 
was  never  cordial,  and  after  a  period  of  nine  years,  they  determined  to 
return  to  their  former  allegiance.  The  house  of  burgesses  declared 
that  the  supreme  power  should  reside  in  the  assembly,  and  that  all 
writs  should  issue  in  the  name  of  the  "  grand  assembly  of  Virginia, 
until  such  a  command  and  commission  come  out  of  England,  as  should 
be  by  the  assembly  judged  lawful."  Berkeley  was  again  appointed  gov- 
ernor, and  Charles  II,  even  before  his  restoration  to  the  throne  had  been 
effected,  waa  proclaimed  in  Virginia  before  intelligence  of  Cromwell's 
death  had  been  received.  Berkeley  was  soon  after  appointed  governor 
by  the  king,  with  instructions  to  summon  an  assembly,  according  to 
usage,  and  to  declare  a  general  act  of  indemnity. 


SETTLEMENT    OF    THE    COLONIES.  29 

Pitkin  says  :  "  The  political  state  of  this  colony,  from  the  time  of  this 
capitulation  to  the  restoration  of  Charles  II,  has  not,  until  recently,  been 
perfectly  understood.  The  early  historians  of  Virginia  have  stated  that 
during  this  period,  the  people  of  that  colony  were  in  entire  subjection  to 
the  oppressive  government  of  Cromwell,  and  that  the  acts  of  parliament, 
in  relation  to  trade,  were  there  rigidly  enforced,  while  they  were  relaxed 
in  favor  of  the  New  England  colonies.  Recent  researches,  however, 
into  the  records  of  that  ancient  colony,  prove  these  statements  to  be  in- 
correct."— Vol.  1,  p.  74.  It  was  expressly  agreed  by  the  articles  of 
capitulation,  that  the  colonists  were  to  have  "  as  free  trade  as  the  people 
do  enjoy  to  all  places  and  with  all  nations."  It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed, 
notwithstanding,  that  the  ordinance  of  1650,  and  the  celebrated  naviga- 
tion act  of  1651,  were  entirely  inoperative  during  the  time  above  men- 
tioned. 

The  Virginians  soon  became  dissatisfied  with  their  government.  The 
right  to  a  participation  in  the  government  was  insecure,  being  dependent 
on  the  will  of  the  king.  Representative  assembles  were  called  by  the 
governors  under  royal  instructions,  which  might  be  withdrawn  or  altered 
at  the  pleasure  of  the  crown.  The  rights  of  the  people  were  rendered 
more  precarious  by  the  reserved  right  of  the  crown  to  negative  any  act 
of  the  legislature.  This  form  of  government,  however,  continued,  with- 
out material  alteration,  until  the  revolution. 

New  York  was  settled  in  1614,  by  the  Dutch,  under  a  grant  of  the 
Dutch  government  to  the  West  India  company,  and  was  held  by  them 
fifty  years.  The  powers  of  government,  legislative,  executive,  and  judi- 
cial, were  vested  in  a  governor  and  council,  who  held  their  offices  under 
the  authority  of  the  company,  and  were  intrusted  with  the  sole  manage- 
ment of  the  affairs  of  the  colony.  Although  the  Dutch  enjoyed  the 
possession  of  this  territory,  it  was  claimed  by  the  English;  and  in  1664, 
the  territory  now  comprising  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  and  a  part  of  Connecticut,  was  granted  by  Charles  II,  to  his 
brother,  the  duke  of  York  and  Albany.  The  same  year  an  expedition 
was  sent  out  under  the  command  of  Col.  Nichols,  who  demanded  and 
received  the  surrender  of  the  colony  in  the  name  of  the  British  crown. 

For  nearly  twenty  years  after  their  surrender  to  the  English,  the  people 
continued  to  be  denied  the  right  of  representation.  All  power  was  vested 
in  a  governor  and  council,  appointed  by  the  king,  and  acting  under  his 
instructions.  At  length,  in  1683,  yielding  to  the  repeated  solicitations 
of  the  people,  the  king  instructed  the  governor  to  call  a  legislative 
assembly,  in  which  representatives  of  the  freeholders  were  to  be  asso- 
ciated with  the  council. 

Col.  Nichols  was  the  first  English  governor.     He  and  his  successors, 


30  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

with  their  councils,  were  appointed  by  the  duke  of  York,  until  July, 
1673,  when  a  Dutch  fleet  entered  the  harbor  of  New  York,  and  obtained 
a  surrender  of  the  place.  The  Dutch  held  it  till  February,  1674,  when 
it  was  again  surrendered  to  the  English  by  treaty.  In  the  same  year, 
Charles  II  made  a  new  grant  to  the  duke  of  York,  who  appointed  as 
his  deputy-governor  sir  Edmund  Andros,  whose  tyrannical  conduct 
here,  and  subsequently  as  governor-general  of  the  New  England 
colonies,  rendered  him  odious  to  the  people. 

The  jwoprietary  governments  were  those  of  Maryland,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  and  at  first  the  Carolinas  and  the  Jerseys.  These  colonies 
were  in  the  hands  of  proprietors,  or  persons  to  whom  the  right  of  the 
soil  had  been  conveyed  by  the  crown,  with  a  general  power  to  establish 
civil  governments.  Their  authority  within  their  own  territories  was 
nearly  the  same  as  that  exercised  by  the  crown  in  the  royal  governments. 
They  appointed  the  governor,  and  organized  and  convened  the  legislature, 
according  to  their  own  will ;  and  they  also  appointed  other  officers,  or 
authorized  the  governors  to  appoint  them.  They  had  power  to  repeal 
or  negative  the  acts  of  the  assemblies ;  and  the  exercise  of  this  power 
caused  great  discontent  among  the  people.  The  proprietors,  however, 
were  subject  to  the  control  of  the  crown,  from  whom  their  own  powers 
were  derived. 

Maryland  was  settled  in  1633.  The  founding  of  this  colony  was  con- 
templated by  sir  George  Calvert,  a  Roman  Catholic  nobleman,  to  whom 
a  grant  of  the  territory  was  made  by  Charles  I.  Calvert  died,  however, 
before  the  settlement  was  effected ;  and  the  enterprise  was  assumed  by  his 
brother  Cecil,  second  lord  Baltimore,  who  appointed  his  brother,  Leonard 
Calvert,  governor,  under  whose  command  the  first  company  of  emigrants 
sailed  from  England,  in  November,  1632.  The  proprietor  had  authority, 
with  the  assent  of  the  freemen,  or  their  deputies,  to  make  all  laws  that 
were  not  inconsistent  with  those  of  England.  The  freemen,  at  first,  met 
in  a  body  to  make  laws.  In  1639,  an  act  was  passed,  providing  for  the 
election  of  a  house  of  burgesses,  who,  with  other  persons  called  by  spe- 
cial writs  of  the  proprietors,  and  the  governor  and  secretary,  constituted 
the  general  assembly.  In  1650,  the  legislature  was  divided  into  two 
branches.  Those  called  by  special  writs  were  to  form  the  upper  house, 
and  those  chosen  by  the  hundreds,  the  lower  house :  and  all  bills  as- 
sented to  by  both  houses  and  approved  by  the  governor,  were  to  be 
deemed  the  laws  of  the  province. 

During  the  civil  wars  in  England,  which  gave  supremacy  to  parlia- 
ment and  Cromwell,  the  governor  was  for  a  time  deprived  of  his  gov- 
ernment. In  1651,  commissioners  were  appointed  "for  reducing  and 
governing  the  colonies  within  the  bay  of  Chesapeake."     The  proprietor, 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  COLONIES.  31 

having  submitted  to  the  authority  of  parliament,  was  permitted  to  re- 
tain his  station ;  but  he  was  to  govern  in  the  name  of  the  government  of 
England. 

In  regard  to  the  interference  of  parliament  with  the  government  of 
the  colony,  the  colonists  were  divided.  The  Catholics  adhered  to  the 
proprietors,  while  others  favored  the  views  of  the  ruling  party  in  Eng- 
land. Contentions  soon  arose  between  the  parties,  which  led  to  a  civil 
war,  in  which  the  governor  and  Catholics  were  defeated;  and  in  1654, 
the  government  was  assumed  by  the  lord  Protector.  A  new  assembly 
was  convened,  and  an  act  was  passed,  by  which  persons  who  held  to 
popery  or  prelacy  were  restrained  from  the  free  exercise  of  their  reli- 
gion. On  the  restoration  of  Charles  II,  the  government  was  restored 
to  the  proprietor.  In  1689,  in  the  reign  of  King  William,  he  was  again 
deprived  of  his  government,  which  was  permanently  restored  in  1716. 

The  province  of  Carolina  was  erected  in  1663,  and  granted  to  lord 
Clarendon  and  others  as  proprietors.  This  charter,  like  that  of  Mary- 
land, gave  to  the  proprietors  authority  to  establish  such  government  and 
enact  such  laws  as  they  should  think  proper,  but  "  with  the  assent  of  the 
freemen  of  the  colony."  The  powers  of  government  were  vested  in  a 
governor,  chosen  by  the  proprietors  out  of  thirteen  persons  to  be  nomi- 
nated by  the  colony,  and  an  assembly  to  be  composed  of  the  governor, 
council,  and  representatives  of  the  people,  with  power  to  make  laws,  not 
contrary  to  those  of  England,  which  should  remain  in  force  until  the 
proprietors  should  publish  their  dissent  to  them.  By  a  change  in  this 
constitution,  the  executive  power  was  placed  in  a  governor,  to  act 
by  the  advice  of  a  council  of  twelve,  six  of  them  to  be  chosen  by 
himself,  and  the  other  six  by  the  assembly,  which  was  composed  of  the 
governor,  the  council,  and  twelve  delegates  chosen  annually  by  the  free- 
holders. Freedom  in  religion  was  granted,  and  all  were  entitled  to  equal 
privileges,  on  taking  the  oaths  of  allegiance  to  the  king,  and  fidelity  to 
the  governor. 

Still  dissatisfied  with  their  system  of  government,  the  proprietors  pro- 
cured the  services  of  John  Locke,  the  eminent  philosopher,  in  drawing 
up  a  constitution,  which  was  adopted  by  the  proprietors  in  1669.  This 
plan  was  ill  adapted  to  the  government  of  freemen.  A  kind  of  nobility 
was  created,  with  the  titles  of  barons,  landgraves,  and  casiques,  who  con- 
stituted one  branch  of  the  legislature.  The  whole  system  was  extremely 
complicated  and  inconvenient,  and  was  the  cause  of  constant  dissatisfac- 
tion among  the  people,  and  of  frequent  disputes  between  them  and  the 
proprietors.  In  1693,  this  constitution  was  abrogated  by  the  proprietors, 
and  the  former  reestablished. 

In  1719,  incited  by  the  arbitrary  exercise  of  power  by  the  proprietors, 


32  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  colonists,  in  a  convention  at  Charleston,  renounced  the  govern- 
ment of  the  proprietors,  elected  a  governor,  and  declared  him  "  invested 
with  the  powers  of  any  of  His  Majesty's  governors  in  America,  till  His 
Majesty's  pleasure  should  be  further  known."  The  people  having  made 
their  situation  known  to  the  crown,  the  charter  of  the  proprietors  was 
declared  forfeit ;  the  government  was  assumed  by  the  crown ;  and  a  royal 
governor  was  appointed.  In  1728,  the  king,  in  pursuance  of  an  act  of 
parliament,  purchased  of  the  proprietors  their  rights  in  the  province ; 
and  the  country  was  divided  into  two  separate  provinces,  wliich  continued 
under  royal  governments  until  the  American  revolution. 

New  Jersey,  as  has  been  stated,  was  included  in  the  grant  of  Charles 
II,  to  his  brother,  the  duke  of  York,  in  1664.  It  was  conveyed  by  the 
duke  to  lord  Berkeley  and  sir  George  Carteret,  and  in  1 766  it  was 
divided  between  the  proprietors  or  their  grantees,  into  East  and  West 
Jersey,  and  a  separate  government  was  maintained  in  each  by  its  pro- 
prietors, until  1702,  when  the  proprietors  surrendered  the  right  of  gov- 
ernment to  the  crown,  and  both  colonies  were  reunited  under  a  royal 
charter. 

The  proprietor  of  Pennsylvania  was  William  Penn,  to  whom  the  ter- 
ritory was  granted  by  Charles  II,  in  1681  ;  and  three  vessels  with  set- 
tlers arrived  soon  after  from  England.  The  next  year  Penn  himself 
arrived,  with  about  2,000  emigrants,  and  a  form  of  government,  and  code 
of  laws  prepared  by  himself  for  his  province.  The  government  consisted 
of  a  governor,  a  council  of  seventy-two  persons,  elected  by  the  freemen, 
and  an  assembly  to  be  composed,  the  first  year,  of  the  whole  body  of  free- 
men, afterwards  of  two  hundred,  and  never  of  more  than  five  hundred. 
The  council,  in  which  the  governor,  having  three  votes,  presided,  exer- 
cised the  executive  power,  and  originated  all  bills  for  laws  to  be  laid 
before  the  assembly.  This  system,  as  a  whole,  was  ill  adapted  to  the 
condition  of  the  colony,  and  in  1683,  was  displaced  by  a  new  one  agreed 
on  by  the  governor  and  freemen.  Penn  having  purchased  of  the  duke 
of  York,  the  lower  counties  of  Delaware,  settled  by  the  Dutch,  Swedes, 
and  Finns,  that  territory  was  included  in  this  government.  By  this  con- 
stitution the  council  was  reduced  to  eighteen,  and  the  assembly  to 
thirty-six. 

In  1701,  the  government  was  again  changed.  The  general  assembly 
was  to  consist  of  a  single  house,  composed  of  four  representatives  from 
each  county,  the  governor  having  a  negative  upon  the  assembly.  There 
was  a  council  of  state  appointed  by  the  proprietor,  to  advise  and  assist 
the  governor,  or  his  deputy,  in  all  public  affairs ;  and  in  his  absence,  or 
in  case  of  the  death  or  incapacity  of  his  deputy,  to  exercise  the  power 
of  government.     This  constitution  continued  until  the  revolution. 


CHAPTER  II. 

TAXATION  OP  THE  COLONIES,  AND  OTHER  CAUSES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. 
INDEPENDENCE  DECLARED. 

A  WIDE  diflference  of  opinion  existed  as  to  the  extent  of  power  which 
Great  Britain  might  lawfully  exercise  over  the  colonies.  The  crown 
claimed  the  right  to  alter  or  to  revoke  their  charters.  This  claim  the 
colonists  denied.  They  regarded  the  charters  as  compacts  or  agreements 
between  themselves  and  the  king ;  and,  being  such,  they  could  not  be 
altered  without  their  consent,  nor  annulled  or  revoked  without  a  forfeit- 
ure on  their  part,  which  must  be  determined  by  a  court  of  competent 
authority.  The  only  limitation  to  the  power  of  the  colonial  legislatures 
was,  that  their  laws  must  not  be  repugnant  to  the  laws  of  England.  The 
king  declared  that  the  laws  here  meant  were  the  ordinary  laws  of  the 
kingdom.  The  colonists  contended  that  the  laws  to  which  their  laws 
must  conform,  were  only  the  great,  fundamental  laws  which  secured  to 
every  British  subject  his  birth-right  privileges,  as  declared  in  the  magna 
charta  and  bill  of  rights.  Hence  the  resistance  to  the  frequent 
attempts  by  the  crown  to  infringe  their  chartered  rights. 

The  most  prominent  subject  of  controversy  was  that  of  taxation  with- 
out representation.  It  was  asserted  in  England,  that  parliament  had 
the  power  "  to  bind  the  colonies  in  all  cases  whatsoever,"  and  conse- 
quently to  tax  them  at  pleasure.  As  the  powers  of  the  British  govern- 
ment over  the  colonies  had  not  been  accurately  defined,  opinions  somewhat 
difierent  were  entertained  on  this  subject,  even  in  America.  In  New 
England,  it  was  generally  maintained  that  the  colonial  assemblies  pos- 
sessed all  the  powers  of  legislation  which  had  not  been  surrendered  by 
compact ;  that  the  colonists,  being  subjects  of  the  British  crown,  were 
not  bound  by  laws  to  which  their  representatives  had  not  assented ;  that 
parliament  had  power  to  regulate  commerce,  but  not  the  internal  affairs 
of  the  colonies ;  and  therefore,  that  while  it  could  impose  duties  for  the 
regulation  of  trade,  its  power  did  not  extend  to  taxation.  In  some 
colonies,  the  right  of  general  legislation  seems  to  have  been  conceded  to 
parliament,  in  cases  of  internal  as  well  as  external  regulation.  The  right 
of  internal  taxation,  however,  was  not  admitted  even  in  these  colonies. 

The  Plymouth  colony,  in  1636,  Maryland  in  1650,  and  Massachusetts 
in  1661,  severally  declared,  by  their  legislatures,  that  no  taxes  should  b? 

3 


34  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

imposed  but  by  tlie  consent  of  the  body  of  freemen,  or  their  representa-* 
lives.  In  1664,  the  assembly  of  Rhode  Island,  adopting  the  language 
of  magna  cliarta^  declared,  that  "  No  aid,  tax,  tallage,  or  custom,  loan, 
benevolence,  gift,  excise,  duty,  or  imposition  whatever,  shall  be  laid, 
assessed,  imposed,  levied,  or  required,  of  or  on  any  of  his  Majesty's  sub- 
jects, within  this  colony,  or  upon  their  estates,  upon  any  manner  of  pre- 
tense or  color,  but  by  the  assent  of  the  general  assembly  of  this 
colony."  The  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  in  1692,  declared,  that  no 
other  authority  had  the  right  to  impose  upon  the  colony  any  tax  what- 
ever. About  the  same  time,  the  legislature  of  New  York  passed  an 
act  asserting  its  own  exclusive  right  to  make  laws  relating  not  only  to 
taxation,  but  to  the  general  affairs  of  the  colony.  In  Virginia,  in 
1676,  it  was  claimed  to  be  "the  right  of  Virginians,  as  well  as  of  all 
other  Englishmen,  not  to  be  taxed  but  by  their  own  consent,  expressed 
by  their  representatives."  The  assembly  of  New  Jersey,  in  1680,  in  a 
certain  case,  declared  even  duties  on  goods  to  be  illegal  and  unconstitu- 
tional, because  imposed  without  their  consent. 

The  general  sentiment  on  this  question,  has  been  stated  by  the  late 
John  Adams  thus  :  "  The  authority  of  parliament  was  never  generally 
acknowledged  in  America.  More  than  a  century  since,  Massachusetts 
and  Virginia  both  protested  against  the  act  of  navigation,  and  refused 
obedience,  for  this  very  reason,  because  they  were  not  represented  in 
parliament,  and  were  therefore  not  bound ;  and  afterwards  confirmed  it 
by  their  own  provincial  authority.  And  from  that  time  to  this,  the 
general  sense  of  the  colonies  has  been,  that  the  authority  of  parliament 
was  confined  to  the  regulation  of  trade,  and  did  not  extend  to  taxation 
or  internal  legislation." 

The  colonists  had  from  the  beginning  acknowledged  the  authority  of 
parliament  to  regulate  commerce,  and  had  paid  duties  laid  for  that  pur- 
pose ;  but  when  they  were  made  to  suffer  fiom  the  restrictive  measures 
of  the  British  government,  some  were  disposed  to  question  its  right  even 
to  lay  duties.  In  New  Jersey  the  collection  of  duties  was,  in  one  in- 
stance, resisted,  on  the '  ground  that  they  were  illegal  and  unconstitu- 
tional, because  imposed  without  the  consent  of  the  people.  Resistance, 
however,  to  the  laws  of  parliament  was  seldom  offered,  until  systematic 
efforts  were  made  by  that  body,  to  exercise  the  power  of  internal  legisla- 
tion and  taxation. 

The  system  of  monopolizing  the  trade  of  the  colonies  by  G-reat 
Britain,  was  commenced  at  an  early  period.  The  Virginia  company,  in 
1621,  to  avoid  the  heavy  duties  upon  their  tobacco  imported  into 
England,  sent  it  to  Holland.  An  ofder  of  the  king  and  ouncil 
soon   followed,   declaring    "  that    no    tobacco,   or    other    productions 


TAXATION  OP  THE  COLONIES.  35 

of  tlic  colonies,  should  thenceforth  be  carried  into  any  foreign  port,  until 
they  were  first  landed  in  England,  and  the  customs  paid."  This  order 
not  being  strictly  enforced  by  the  governors,  instructions  were  given,  in 
1637,  to  the  governor  of  Virginia,  to  "be  very  careful  that  no  vessel 
depart  thence  loaded  with  these  commodities  before  bond  with  sufficient 
sureties  be  taken  to  his  Majesty's  use,  to  bring  the  same  into  his  Majesty's 
dominions,  and  to  carry  a  loading  from  thence," 

Notwithstanding  these  instructions,  the  productions  of  the  colonies 
and  of  other  countries,  were  still  carried  by  Hollanders  for  English 
merchants.  Then  came  that  memorable  enactment,  called  the  naviga- 
tion act,  by  the  commons  in  1651.  By  this  act  it  was  ordained, 
that  no  merchandise  should  be  imported  into  his  Majesty's  plantations, 
or  exported  from  them,  but  in  vessels  built  in  England  or  its  plantations ; 
and  that  no  sugar,  tobacco,  ginger,  cotton,  indigo,  or  other  articles 
enumerated,  should  be  exported  from  the  colonies  to  any  other  country 
than  such  as  belonged  to  the  crown  of  Grreat  Britain.  This  act,  which 
was  passed  while  the  parliament  was  in  power,  was  reenacted  soon  after 
the  restoration  of  Charles  II,  and  with  additional  restrictions.  Not 
satisfied  with  the  monopoly  of  the  colonial  export  trade,  parliament, 
determined  to  effect  a  similar  limitation  of  the  import  trade,  enacted  in 
1663,  that  "no  copimodity  of  the  growth  or  manufacture  of  Europe^ 
yhall  be  imported  into  any  of  tlie  king's  plantations  in  Asia,  Africa,  or 
America,  but  what  shall  have  been  sliippcdin  England^  Wales,  or  town  of 
Berwick,  and  in  English  built  shipping,  whereof  the  master  and  three- 
fourths  of  the  mariners  are  English,  and  carried  directly  thence  to  the  said 
plantations ;"  excepting,  however,  salt  from  any  part  of  Europe  for  the 
American  fisheries,  wines  from  Madeira  and  the  Azores,  and  provisions 
from  Scotland,  for  the  plantations.  The  objects  of  this  selfish  policy 
are  declared  in  the  preamble  to  this  act  to  be :  "  the  keeping  of  his 
Majesty's  subjects  in  the  plantations  in  a  firmer  dependeime ;"  the 
*'  increase  of  English  shipping ;"  and  "  the  vent  of  English  woolens  and 
other  manufactures  and  commodities.'''' 

These  acts,  however,  left  the  colonists  free  to  export  the  enumerated 
commodities  from  one  plantation  to  another,  without  duty.  But  even 
this  privilege  was  not  long  enjoyed.  In  1672,  duties  were  imposed  upon 
sugars,  tobacco,  indigo,  cotton,  wool,  &c.,  transported  from  one  colony 
to  another.  These  acts  were,  in  some  of  the  colonies,  declared  to  be 
violations  of  their  charters ;  and  in  Massachusetts  they  were  wholly  dis- 
regarded. They  were  pronounced  by  the  general  court,  to  be  an  invasion 
of  the  rights,  liberties,  and  properties  of  the  subjects  of  his  Majesty  in 
the  colony,  they  not  being  represented  in  parliament."  The  displeasure 
of  the  king  and  ministry  having  been  excited  by  this  violation  of  the 


36  THE   AMERICAN   STATESMAN, 

laws,  and  measures  being  meditated  to  enforce  tliem,  the  general  courts 
by  a  special  act,  ordered  their  obseryance  in  future.  In  the  Carolinasy 
also,  these  acts  were  not  generally  obeyed.  The  act  levying  duties  on 
articles  carried  from  one  colony  to  another  was  pronounced  a  violation 
of  their  charters. 

In  1696,  a  board  erf  commissioners,  called  "a  board  of  trade  and 
plantations,"  was  constituted  to  take  the  management  of  the  affairs^  of 
the  colonies.  Laws  were  alsa  passed  for  the  more  certain  enforcement  of 
the  acts  of  trade.  One  of  these  laws  required  the  governors,  an  oath,  and 
under  a  severe  penalty^  to  see  the  navigation  acts  executed.  Parliament 
also  made  the  authority  of  the  governors  in  the  proprietary  governments 
dependent  on  the  approval  of  the  king,  in  violation  of  the  charters  of 
these  colonies. 

We  have  seen^  that  the  restrictive  policy  of  the  parent  country  was  to 
secure  a  "  vent  of  English  woolens  and  other  manufactures  and  commo- 
dities," as  well  as  the  "  increase  of  English  shipping."  Accordingly, 
when  the  colonists  began  to  manufacture  for  themselves,  they  were  met 
by  an  act  af  parliament,  declaring  that  "  no  wool,  yarn,  or  woolen  man- 
ufactures of  the  American  plantations  should  be  shipped  there  to  be 
transported  to  any  place  whatever."  The  manufactures  most  injurious 
to  the  trade  and  manufactures  of  the  parent  country,  were  those  of  wool, 
flax,  iron,  paper,  hats  and  leather.  Hats  being,  made  in  New  England, 
and  exported  to  Spain,  Portugal,  and  the  West  India  islands,  an  act  was 
passed  in  1732,  which  prohibited  not  only  their  exportation  to  foreign 
countries,  but  their  being  carried  from  one  colony  to  another.  And,  aa 
an  additional  means  of  crippling  the  manufacture  of  this  article,  no  hat- 
ter was  allowed  to  carry  on  the  business,  without  having  served  seven 
years  as  an  apprentice  to  the  trade,  or  to  employ  more  than  two  appren- 
tices at  one  time ;  and  no  black  or  negro  might  work  at  the  business  at 
all.  By  an  act  of  parliament,  in  1750,  iron  in  pigs  and  bars  might  be 
imported  from  the  colonies  into  England  to  be  manufactured ;  but  the 
erection  or  continuance  of  any  slitting  or  railing  mill,  plating  forge  to 
work  with  a  tilt-hammer,  or  any  furnace  for  making  steel  in  the  colonies, 
was  prohibited  ^  and  any  such  mill  or  machinery  was  declared  to  be  a 
common  nuisance,  which  the  governors,  under  a  penalty  of  £500,  were 
required  to  cause  to  be  abated. 

The  extraordinary  expenses  of  the  war  between  Great  Britain  and 
France,  which  terminated  in  the  peace  of  1763,  and  in  the  acquisition  of 
Canada  and  the  other  French  possessions  in  North  America,  having  ren- 
dered it  necessary  to  increase  the  national  revenue,  it  was  determined  to 
have  recourse  to  taxation  in  the  colonies ;  and  also  to  provide  for  a  more 
rigid  execution  of  the  navigation  acts,  and  acts  regulating  the  colonial 


TAXATIOTSf   OF    THE    COLONIES.  37 

trade.  Accordingly,  orders  were  issued,  in  1760,  to  tlie  custom  house 
officers  in  America,  to  take  more  effectual  measures  for  enforcing  the 
acts  of  trade ;  and  particularly  those  which  imposed  duties  upon  the 
productions  of  the  French  and  Spanish  West  India  islands.  To  insure 
the  future  collection  of  these  duties,  all  officers  in  the  sea  service  on  the 
American  station,  were  converted  into  revenue  officers,  and  required  to 
take  custom  house  oaths ;  and  the  collectors  of  customs  were  directed  to 
apply,  if  necessary,  to  the  courts  for  written  authority  to  break  open 
houses  and  other  buildings  to  search  for  smuggled  and  prohibited  goods. 
The  New  England  colonies  had  carried  on  a  lucrative  trade  with  the 
French  and  Spanish  colonies.  With  the  sugar,  molasses,  &c.,  there 
obtained,  they  had  been  enabled  to  pay  for  the  British  manufactures  im- 
ported. Massachusetts  being  most  deeply  interested  in  that  trade,  these 
measures  were  extremely  obnoxious  to  the  people  of  that  colony.  What 
rendered  the  law  more  objectionable  was,  that  the  penalties  and  for- 
feitures under  it  were  recoverable  in  any  court  of  vice-admiralty  without 
trial  by  jury. 

Another  measure  contemplated  by  the  British  ministry  about  this  time, 
was  the  modification  of  the  colonial  governments.  As  these  govern- 
ments, especially  the  charter  governments,  were  deemed  too  liberal,  it 
was  thought  necessary  to  alter  them,  with  a  view  of  rendering  the  colo- 
nies more  dependent  on  the  crown,  and  of  preventing  revolts  in  future. 
The  attempt  to  carry  into  effect  this  purpose  of  "  reforming  the  Ameri- 
can governments,"  was  prevented,  probably,  by  the  general  excitement 
produced  by  the  resolution  of  parliament,  in  1 764,  declaring  the  inten- 
tion of  imposing  stamp  duties  in  the  colonies ;  the  further  consideration 
of  which  was  postponed  to  the  next  session. 

Apprehending  the  passage  of  the  stamp  act,  agents  from  several  of 
the  provincial  assemblies  were  sent  id  England,  with  petitions  to  the 
king,  and  memorials  to  both  houses  of  parliament  against  the  measure ; 
but  the  petitions  and  raemorials  were  not  received  ;  it  being  alleged  to 
be  contrary  to  order  to  receive  petitions  against  money  bills.  The  bill 
was  passed  by  very  large  majorities  in  both  houses,  and  on  the  22nd  of 
March,  1765,  received  the  royal  assent.  This  act  provided  that  obliga- 
tions in  writing  in  daily  use,  were  to  be  null  and  void,  unless  they  were 
executed  on  a  paper  or  parchment  stamped  with  a  specific  duty.  Also 
newspapers,  almanacs,  and  pamphlets  were  to  be  made  to  contribute  to 
the  British  treasury. 

Intelligence  of  the  passage  of  this  act  was  received  with  indignation 
and  alarm ;  meetings  of  the  people  were  held ;  and  the  whole  country 
was  set  in  a  flame.  The  asdCUibly  of  Virginia  was  in  session  when  the 
news  arrived.     Resolutions  introduced  by  Pati-i<3k  Henry,  were  adopted. 


38  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

in  which  the  taxation  of  the  people  by  themselves  or  their  chosen  repre- 
sentatives, was  claimed  as  their  exclusive  right.  Similar  resolutions 
were  passed  by  the  legislatures  of  several  other  colonies.  The  house  of 
representatives  of  Massachusetts  recommended  a  congress  of  deputies 
from  all  the  colonies,  to  meet  at  New  York  on  the  first  Tuesday  of 
October,  1765,  to  consult  on  the  circumstances  of  the  colonies  and 
measures  of  relief.  Commissioners  from  all  the  colonies  except  New 
Hampshire  assembled;  and  Timothy  Ruggles,  of  Massachusetts,  was 
elected  president  of  the  congress.  A  declaration  of  rights  and  griev- 
ances was  adopted,  asserting  among  other  things,  that  the  colonists  "  are 
entitled  to  all  the  inherent  rights  and  liberties  of  his  Majesty's  natural 
born  subjects  within  the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain  ;  that  it  was  the  un- 
doubted right  of  Englishmen,  that  no  taxes  be  imposed  on  them  but  with 
their  own  consent,  given  personally,  or  by  their  representatives  ;  that  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury  is  the  inherent  right  of  every  British  subject  in 
these  colonies ;  that  the  stamp  act  and  other  acts  extending  the  juris- 
diction of  the  courts  of  admiralty  beyond  its  ancient  limits,  have  a  man- 
ifest tendency  to  subvert  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  colonists  ;  that 
the  restrictions  on  the  trade  of  the  colonies  will  render  them  unable  to 
purchase  the  manufactures  of  Great  Britain ;  and  that  it  was  the  right 
and  duty  of  the  colonists,  as  British  subjects^  to  petition  the  king  and 
parliament  for  the  repeal  of  the  stamp  act,  of  tlie  acts  extending  the  ad- 
miralty jurisdiction,  and  ■'of  the  other  late  acts  for  the  restriction  of 
American  commerce." 

They  next  prepared  an  address  to  the  king,  and  a  petition  to  both 
houses  of  parliament.  These  papers,  while  they  breathe  a  spirit  of  true 
loyalty,  furnish  a  specimen  of  dignified,  earnest,  yet  respectful  remon- 
strance, that  commands  the  highest  admiration.  The  king  is  reminded 
of  the  causes  and  objects  that  brought  their  ancestors  to  this  country ; 
of  the  encouragements  offered  them  by  his  predecessors ;  of  their  toils 
and  hardships  in  converting  the  deserts  of  America  into  flourishing 
countries,  by  which  the  wealth  and  power  of  Great  Britain  had  been 
greatly  augmented.  They  proceed  to  say  :  "  Our  connection  with  this 
empire  we  esteem  our  greatest  happiness  and  security,  and  humbly  con- 
ceive it  may  now  be  so  established  by  your  royal  wisdom,  as  to  endure  to 
the  latest  period  of  time.  This,  with  the  most  humble  submission  to 
your  Majesty,  we  apprehend  will  be  most  effectually  accomplished,  by 
fixing  the  pillars  thereof  on  liberty  and  justicSy  and  securing  the  inher- 
ent righits  and  liberties  of  your  subjects  here  upon  the  principles  of  the 
English  constitution."  In  their  petition  to  the  house  of  commons,  they 
claim  exemption  from  taxation,  on  the  ground  "  that  parliament,  adher- 
ing to  the  principles  of  the  constitution,  have  never  hitherto  taxed  any 


TAXATION  OF  THE  COLONIES.  89 

but  "those  wlio  were  actually  therein  represented ;"  and  then  show,  that  it 
would  be  for  the  interest  of  G-reat  Britain,  as  well  as  for  that  of  the  col- 
onies, to  repeal  the  acts  complained  of. 

The  congress  recommended  to  the  colonies  to  send  with  their  petitions 
special  agents,  who  should  unite  their  endeavors  to  obtain  a  redress  of 
grievances.  One  of  these  was  Dr.  Franklin,  from  Pennsylvania,  The 
petitions  were  to  be  presented  immediately  to  the  king,  and  to  parliament 
when  they  should  again  be  convened. 

Meetings  of  the  people  were  held  in  every  part  of  tlie  country,  to  ex- 
press their  opposition  to  the  stamp  act ;  and  the  determination  was  de- 
clared, that  the  act  should  never  be  carried  into  effect.  Newspapers 
abounded  with  denunciations  of  the  act;  and  essays  from  some  of  the 
ablest  pens  were  distributed  in  pamphlets  throughout  the  country.  The 
merchants  of  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Boston,  entered  into  agree- 
ments to  order  no  goods  from  Great  Britain ;  and  associations  were 
formed  in  all  parts  of  the  country  against  the  use  of  British  manufac- 
tures, and  for  the  encouragement  of  domestic  fabrics.  To  avoid  the 
necessity  of  using  stamps,  proceedings  in  the  courts  of  justice  were  sus- 
pended, and  the  people  were  advised  to  settle  their  disputes  by  arbitra- 
tion. An  association  was  also  formed,  styled  "  the  sons  of  liberty^''  who 
bound  themselves  to  go  to  any  part  of  the  country,  to  resist  by  force  any 
attempt  to  carry  the  stamp  act  into  operation.  So  violent  was  the  oppo- 
sition to  this  measure,  that,  on  the  first  day  of  November,  when  the  act 
was  to  have  gone  into  effect,  neither  stamps  no  officers  were  to  be  found  ! 

In  July  of  this  year,  (1765,)  a  change  took  place  in  the  British  cabi- 
net. The  new  administration  was  not  disposed  to  prosecute  the  plan  for 
taxing  the  colonies  without  their  consent.  In  January,  1766,  parliament 
assembled,  and  the  papers  of  the  American  congress  were  laid  before 
that  body.  A  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the  stanj.}-  act  was  introduced  in 
February ;  and  after  an  animated  and  able  deoate,  in  which  Mr.  Pitt 
and  Lord  Grenville  were  the  leading  speakers ;  the  former  advocating 
the  repeal,  the  latter  opposing  it ;  the  bill  passed  both  houses  by  large 
majorities,  and,  on  the  18th  of  March,  received  the  assent  of  the  king. 
Parliament,  however,  lest  the  act  of  repeal  should  be  construed  into  a 
relinquishment  of  the  right  of  taxation,  passed  a  declaratory  resolution, 
asserting  the  power  and  right  of  the  king  and  parliament  "  to  make  laws  of 
sufficient  force  and  validity  to  bind  the  colonies  in  all  cases  ivhatsoevery 
This  resolution  was  followed  by  four  others,  one  of  which  declared,  that 
the  tumults  and  insurrections  which  had  been  raised  and  carried  on  in  seve- 
ral of  the  colonies,  had  been  encouraged  by  votes  and  resolutions  passed 
in  the  assemblies  of  the  said  colonies ;  and  another,  that  the  king  should 
be  requested  to  instruct  the  governors  of  these  colonies  "  to  require  the 


40  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

assemblies  to  make  proper  recompense  to  those  who  have  suffered  in  their 
persons  or  properties,  in  consequence  of  such  tumults  and  insurrections." 

The  general  joy  caused  by  the  repeal  of  the  stamp  act,  was  in  some 
measure  restrained  by  the  claim  of  unlimited  power  over  the  colonies 
asserted  in  the  first  resolution.  It  was  apprehended  by  some,  that  the 
exercise  of  the  power  of  taxation  would  be  repeated  on  some  future 
occasion.  Others,  however,  supposed  the  declaration  to  have  been  made 
simply  from  motives  of  national  pride;  parliament  having  deemed  it 
derogatory  to  British  honor  to  concede  the  principle  contended  for  by 
the  colonies ;  and  that  the  declaration  would  never  be  reduced  to  prac- 
tice. The  hopes  of  the  latter,  however,  were  soon  disappointed.  In 
1767,  an  act  was  passed,  imposing  duties  upon  glass,  paper,  paints,  and 
tea  imported  into  the  colonies  from  Grreat  Britain ;  the  object  of  which, 
as  declared  in  the  preamble,  was  "to  raise  a  revenue  in  America." 

The  tardy  compliance,  by  some  of  the  colonies,  with  the  demand  to 
make  compensation  to  the  sufferers  in  the  stamp  act  riots,  and  the  offen- 
sive manner  in  which  the  requisition  was  complied  with ;  and  the  refusal 
of  others  to  furnish  certain  articles  not  usually  furnished,  but  now 
required,  for  the  soldiers  quartered  in  the  colonies,  excited  the  displeasure 
of  the  British  government,  and  were  probably  among  the  causes  which 
induced  the  passage  of  this  act.  To  insure  the  collection  of  the  duties, 
authority  was  given  the  king  to  appoint  commissioners  who  were  to  reside 
in  the  colonies,  and  to  be  intrusted  with  the  execution  of  the  laws  relating 
to  trade.  The  duties  imposed  by  this  act  were  deemed  taxes  as  really  as 
were  the  stamp  duties;  and  the  act  imposing  them  was  scarcely  less  odious 
than  its  predecessor,  and  met  with  similar  opposition.  Massachusetts, 
being,  from  her  extensive  commerce,  most  deeply  affected  by  restrictions 
upon  the  trade  of  the  colonies,  took  the  lead  in  opposition  to  this  measure. 
Her  general  assembly  met  in  January,  1 768.  A  petition  to  the  king  was 
prepared ;  and  letters  were  addressed  to  some  of  the  prominent  members 
of  parliament,  in  which  they  again  claim  exemption  from  taxation  without 
representation,  as  the  right  of  Englishmen,  under  the  British  constitu- 
tion. They  also  set  forth  the  injustice  of  this  and  other  acts  of  parlia- 
ment. They  say:  "The  colonies  are  prohibited  from  importing  commo- 
dities the  growth  or  manufacture  of  Europe,  except  from  Great  Britain, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  articles;"  which  they  consider  an  advantage 
to  Great  Britain  of  twenty  per  cent,  in  the  price  of  her  productions,  and 
virtually  a  tax  of  equal  amount  to  the  colonies.  They  say  farther: 
"The  same  reasoning  will  hold  good  to  the  many  enumerated  articles  of 
their  produce  which  the  colonies  are  restrained,  by  acts  of  parliament, 
from  sending  to  foreign  ports.  By  this  restraint,  the  market  is  glutted, 
and  consequently  the  produce  sold  is  cheaper;  which  is  an  advantage  to 


TAXATION  OF  THE  COLONIES.  41 

Great  Britain,  and  an  equal  loss  or  tax  upon  the  colonics."  They  also 
addressed  a  circular  letter  to  the  assemblies  of  the  respective  colonics. 
The  other  colonies  joined,  not  only  in  addressing  the  king,  but  in  declar- 
ing the  duties  unconstitutional. 

Alarmed  at  this  movement  set  on  foot  by  Massachusetts,  the  king,  by  his 
secretary  of  state,  addressed  a  circular  letter  to  the  several  governors,  to 
be  by  them  laid  before  the  assemblies  of  their  respective  colonies,  pro- 
nouncing the  action  of  Massachusetts  an  unjustifiable  attempt  to  revive 
those  distractions  which  have  operated  so  fatally  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
colonies  and  the  mother  country,"  and  requesting  them  not  to  take  part 
with  Massachusetts  by  approving  such  proceedings.  The  governor  of 
Massachusetts  was  directed  "  to  require  of  the  house  of  representatives  in 
his  majesty's  name,  to  rescind  the  resolution  which  gave  birth  to  the  cir- 
cular letter  of  the  speaker."  The  house,  by  a  vote  of  92  to  17,  refused 
to  rescind  or  to  disapprove  the  proceedings  of  the  preceding  assembly, 
and  addressed  a  letter  to  the  British  secretary.  Lord  Hillsborough,  in 
justification  of  their  course.  A  letter  was  also  sent  to  the  governor, 
stating  the  reasons  for  refusing  to  rescind  the  resolution.  The  governor, 
on  receiving  this  letter,  dissolved  the  assembly.  He  had  been  previously 
instructed  by  the  king  to  do  so,  in  case  of  their  refusal  to  rescind,  and 
to  transmit  their  proceedings  to  the  king,  that  measures  might  be  taken 
to  prevent,  for  the  future,  "  conduct  of  so  extraordinary  and  unconstitu- 
tional a  nature."  The  ''measures "  intended  were  the  arresting  of  persons 
concerned  in  resisting  or  preventing  the  execution  of  the  laws,  and  the 
transporting  of  them  to  England  to  be  tried  for  treason. 

The  assembly  of  Virginia  passed  resolutions  asserting  the  exclusive 
right  to  impose  taxes  upon  the  inhabitants  of  that  colony,  and  the  right 
to  petition  for  a  redress  of  grievances,  and  to  obtain  a  concurrence  of 
other  colonies  in  such  petitions,  and  expressing  their  disapproval  of  the 
address  of  parliament  to  the  king  requesting  him  to  direct  the  governor 
of  Massachusetts  to  aid  in  causing  persons  to  be  prosecuted  in  England 
for  offenses  alleged  to  have*  been  committed  in  that  colony.  The  assem- 
bly also  agreed  on  an  address  to  the  king,  declaring  their  attachment  to 
the  crown,  and  their  conviction  that  the  complaints  of  the  colonists  were 
not  without  just  cause.  The  governor,  on  being  informed  of  these  pro- 
ceedings, forthwith  dissolved  the  assembly.  Whereupon,  the  members 
met  at  a  private  house,  and  formed  a  non-importing  association,  in  which 
the  people  of  the  province  generally  afterwards  united. 

In  the  same  month,  (May,  1769,)  the  general  court  of  Massachusetts 
was  convened  for  the  first  time  since  its  dissolution  in  July,  1768.  The 
state  house  being  surrounded  by  an  armed  guard,  the  house  requested 
the  governor  to  order  the  removal  of  the  troops  from  the  town  during 


42  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  session  of  the  assembly,  declaring  it  to  be  inconsistent  with  their 
dignity,  as-  well  as  freedom,  to  deliberate  in  the  midst  of  an  armed  force, 
with  cannon  pointed  at  the  door  of  the  state  house.     The  governor 
refused  to  comply  with  the  request,  alleging  that  he  had  no   authority ' 
over  the  troops 

The  general  court  had  been  convened  in  order  to  procure  a  grant  of 
money  for  purposes  of  government ;  but  they  refused  to  enter  upon  the 
business  for  which  they  had  been  called  together,  confining  themselves 
chiefly  to  the  consideration  of  their  grievances.  In  the  ^  hope  that,  if 
removed  from  the  influences  that  surrounded  them  in  the  metropolis, 
they  would  attend  to  their  proper  legislative  duties,  the  governor 
adjourned  them  t5  Cambridge.  But  they  resumed  the  consideration  of 
their  rights  and  grievances,  and  passed  a  long  series  of  resolutions,  one 
of  which  related  to  the  quartering  of  troops  among  them  to  enforce  the 
laws,  and  declared,  "that  the  establishment  of  a  standing  army  in  the 
colony,  in  time  of  peace,  without  consent  of  the  general  assembly,  is  an 
invasion  of  the  natural  rights  of  the  people,  as  well  as  those  which  they 
claim  as  free  born  Englishmen,  confirmed  by  magna  charta^  the  bill  of 
rights,  as  settled  by  the  revolution,  and  by  the  charter  of  the  province.'* 
Another  resolution  expressed  the  same  sentiment  as  that  of  the  assembly 
of  Virginia,  relative  to  the  transportation  of  Americans  to  England  for 
trial.  When,  toward  the  close  of  the  session,  they  were  called  upon  by 
the  governor  to  provide  for  paying  expenses  already  incurred  for  quar 
tering  the  troops,  and  for  similar  expenses  in  future,  they  pet-emptorily 
refused. 

The  spirit  exhibited  in  the  legislatures  of  Virginia  and  Massachusetts, 
prevailed  in  most  of  the  colonies.  Similar  sentiments  were  expressed  by 
their  assemblies ;  and  in  several  of  them  the  Virginia  resolutions  were 
adopted.  Non-importation  agreements  became  general.  One  object  of 
these  associations  is  supposed  to  have  been  to  secure  the  aid  of  the  mer- 
chants and  manufacturers,  whose  interests  would  be  most  afi'ected  by  non- 
importation, in  endeavoring  to  procure  a  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  laws. 
The  merchants  of  Boston,  in  August,  176S,  agreed  not  to  import  from 
Great  Britain,  between  the  first  day  of  January,  1769,  the  day  on  which 
the  revenue  act  was  to  take  eJQfect,  and  the  first  of  January,  1770,  any 
articles  whatever,  except  a  few  of  the  most  necessary ;  and  of  those  last 
taxed,  to  import  none  until  the  duties  were  taken  off.  In  New  York, 
Salem,  and  some  other  cities  and  towns,  similar  agreements  were  formed; 
but  they  did  not  become  general  through  the  colonies,  until  all  hope  was 
lost  that  petitions  and  memorials  would  effect  the  desired  object. 

In  March,  1770,  a  bill  was  introduced  in  parliament,  exempting  from 
duty  all  the  articles  embraced  in  the  act  of  1 768,  except  tea.     The  total 


TAXATION  OF  THE  COLONIES.  :43 

repeal  of  the  act  might  have  been  construed  into  an  abandonment  of  the 
principle  in  controversy.  To  prevent  such  construction,  was  probabl}^ 
the  chief  object  of  retaining  the  duty  on  that  article.  At  a  meeting  of 
the  merchants  of  Boston,  it  was  resolved,  that  this  partial  repeal  would 
not  remove  the  difficulties  that  attended  their  trade;  that  it  was  intended 
only  to  relieve  the  British  manufacturers ;  and  that  they  would  adhere 
to  their  non-importation  agreement.  Similar  resolutions  were  elsewhere 
adopted.  The  general  observance,  however,  of  the  non-importation 
agreement,  did  not  long  continue.  Associations,  and  individuals  of  the 
same  association,  accused  each  other  of  violations  of  the  agreement ;  and 
each  made  the  acts  of  others  a  pretext  for  his  own. 

Troops  were  still  kept  in  Boston,  to  enforce  the  acts  of  trade  and 
revenue,  and  to  awe  the  people  into  submission.  This  was  the  cause  of 
frequent  quarrels  and  of  some  actual  collisions.  On  the  5th  of  March, 
1770,  an  aifray  took  place  between  a  part  of  the  military  and  some  of  the 
inhabitants,  in  which  the  latter  were  fired  upon,  and  four  of  them  were 
killed.  The  town  was  thrown  into  commotion.  The  bells  were  rung, 
and  the  inhabitants  assembled  in  arms,  and  were  with  difficulty  restrained 
from  rushing  upon  the  soldiers.  The  next  morning,  a  large  meeting 
assembled  in  Faneuil  Hall,  and  in  the  afternoon,  at  a  town  meeting 
legally  warned,  it  was  resolved,  "  that  nothing  could  rationally  be  expected 
to  restore  the  peace  of  the  town,  and  prevent  further  blood  and  carnage, 
but  the  immediate  removal  of  the  troops."  A  committee  was  appointed, 
with  Samuel  Adams  as  chairman,  who  proceeded  to  the  council  chamber, 
to  demand  of  the  lieutenant  governor  (Hutchinson)  their  instant  removal. 
After  some  hesitation,  and  upon  the  advice  of  the  council,  the  troops 
were  removed  to  the  castle,  and  peace  was  restored.  Captain  Preston 
and  eight  soldiers  were  indicted  and  tried  for  murder.  It  appeared 
upon  trial,  that  the  soldiers  had  been  provoked  by  repeated  insults  and 
assaults  of  the  mob ;  and  all  were  acquitted  except  two,  who  were  con- 
victed of  manslaughter  only. 

On  the  12th  of  April,  the  bill  to  take  off  the  duties  on  glass,  paper, 
and  paints,  was  passed ;  but  although  the  non-importation  associations 
had  been  generally  abandoned,  opposition  to  the  importations  was  still 
maintained.  The  perseverance  of  the  colonists  in  their  determination 
not  to  import  tea  from  England  had  caused  the  accumulation  of  a  large 
quantity  in  the  warehouses  of  the  East  India  company,  who  were  impelled 
to  apply  to  parliament  for  relief.  An  act  was  accordingly  passed,  (1773,) 
allowing  the  company  a  drawback  of  all  the  duties  they  had  paid  in 
England  on  such  of  their  teas  as  they  should  export  to  America.  This 
would  enable  the  company  to  sell  the  article  cheaper  in  the  colonies  than 
in  Great  Britain ;  which,  it  was  hoped,  would  induce  the  colonists  to 


44  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

purchase  it ;  who  would  thus  contribute  to  the  relief  of  the  company, 
and  to  the  revenues  of  Great  Britain. 

Large  shipments  of  tea  were  made  to  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia, 
Charleston,  and  other  places.  But  the  colonists  were  determined  not  to 
suffer  it  to  be  landed.  If  it  should  be  landed,  it  would  be  sold  and  the 
duties  would  be  paid ;  and  a  precedent  for  taxing  the  colonies  would  be 
established.  In  Charleston,  the  tea  was,  after  much  opposition,  landed ; 
but  the  consignees  were  not  permitted  to  offer  it  for  sale.  In  Philadel- 
phia and  New  York,  the  consignees  declined  receiving  it,  and  it  was  re- 
turned in  the  same  vessels  to  England.  At  Boston,  the  consignees  were 
requested  to  resign.  They  refusing  to  comply  with  the  request,  a  large 
meeting  assembled  in  Faneuil  Hall,  where  it  was  voted,  "  that  the  tea 
shall  not  be  landed ;  that  no  duty  shall  be  paid ;  and  that  it  shall  be  sent 
back  in  the  same  bottoms."  And  the  captains  of  the  vessels  were 
directed  to  apply  for  clearances,  without  an  entry  of  their  vessels. 
While  the  meeting  was  in  session,  one  of  the  captains  was  sent,  for  the 
last  time,  to  the  governor  for  a  clearance.  The  refusal  of  the  governor 
having  been  announced,  the  meeting  dissolved ;  and  the  people  repaired 
to  the  wharf,  where  a  number,  previously  selected  for  the  purpose,  and 
dressed  in  the  guise  of  Mohawk  Indians,  boarded  the  vessels,  broke  open 
three  hundred  and  forty-two  chests  of  tea,  and  emptied  their  contents 
into  the  ocean.     This  occurred  in  December,  1773. 

In  March  following,  these  proceedings  were  laid  before  parliament,  in 
a  message  from  the  king.  Indignant  at  the  conduct  of  the  Americans, 
parliament  at  once  resolved  to  provide  effectually  for  securing  obedience 
to  the  laws.  The  colony  of  Massachusetts,  particularly  the  town  of 
Boston,  having  rendered  themselves  most  conspicuous  in  the  opposition 
to  the  laws,  were  made  the  special  objects  of  resentment.  A  bill,  since 
called  the  "  Boston  port  bill,"  was  introduced  "  for  discontinuing  the 
lading  and  shipping  of  goods,  wares  and  merchandises  at  Boston,  or  the 
harbor  thereof,  and  for  the  removal  of  the  custom  house  with  its  depend- 
encies to  the  town  of  Salem."  The  bill  passed  with  little  opposition. 
This  act,  interdicting  all  intercourse  with  Boston,  was  to  continue  in 
force  until  the  East  India  company  should  be  fully  compensated  for  the 
loss  of  their  tea,  and  until  the  king  should  have  declared  himself  satisfied 
that  peace  and  good  order  had  been  restored  in  the  town. 

An  act  was  next  passed,  "  for  the  better  regulating  the  government  of 
the  province  of  Massachusetts  Bay."  By  this  act,  the  charter  was  to 
be  altered  with  a  view  to  deprive  the  people  of  certain  important  rights. 
The  members  of  the  council  were  no  longer  to  be  chosen  by  the  general 
assembly,  but  appointed  by  the  king,  and  dismissed  at  his  pleasure  :  and 
the  magistrates  and  other  officers  were  to  be  appointed  and  removed  by 


TAXATION  OF  THE  COLONIES.  45 

the  governor,  without  the  consent  of  the  council.  Also  the  right  of 
selecting  jurors  by  the  people  of  the  towns,  was  taken  away,  and  given 
to  the  sheriffs,  who  were  appointed  by  the  governor.  Nor  were  the  people 
to  be  allowed  to  hold  meetings  in  the  several  towns,  except  the  annual 
meetings  for  the  election  of  officers,  without  leave  of  the  governor  in 
writing.  By  this  restriction,  it  was  doubtless  intended  to  prevent  those 
assemblages  in  which  the  people  had  been  accustomed  to  discuss  their  re- 
lations to  the  parent  country,  and  to  consult  on  measures  for  the  main- 
tenance of  their  rights. 

Another  act  was  passed,  providing  "  for  the  impartial  administration 
of  justice  in  Massachusetts  Bay  ;"  by  which,  persons  indicted  for  a  cap- 
ital offense  committed  in  enforcing  the  revenue  laws,  or  in  suppressing, 
or  aiding  to  suppress  riots  in  that  colony,  might  be  sent  to  any  other 
colony  or  to  Great  Britain  to  be  tried.  This  act  was  to  continue  in  force 
four  years. 

A  fourth  bill  was  passed  for  quartering  soldiers  on  the  inhabitants  of 
the  colonies. 

And  lastly,  "  an  act  for  making  more  effectual  provision  for  the 
government  of  the  province  of  Quebec."  By  this  act,  the  limits  of  that 
province  were  to  be  so  extended  as  to  include  the  territory  between  the 
lakes,  the  Ohio,  and  the  Mississippi ;  and  was  intended  to  restrict  the 
limits  of  other  colonies.  The  most  exceptionable  feature  of  this  act 
was,  the  establishment  of  a  legislative  council,  to  be  appointed  by  the 
king,  and  invested  with  all  the  powers  of  legislation,  except  that  of  im- 
posing taxes. 

The  refractory  spirit  of  the  people,  especially  those  of  Massachusetts, 
who  were  to  be  punished  into  submission,  was  not  subdued  by  any  of 
these  laws.  On  receiving  intelligence  of  the  Boston  port  bill,  a  meeting 
of  the  people  of  that  town  was  called,  and  resolutions  were  passed,  de- 
nouncing the  act,  and  inviting  the  other  colonies  to  join  with  them  in  an 
agreement  to  stop  all  imports  from,  and  exports  to,  Grreat  Britain  and 
the  West  Indies,  until  the  act  should  be  repealed. 

The  other  colonies  made  common  cause  with  Massachusetts.  The 
legislature  of  Virginia  being  in  session  when  the  news  of  the  Boston 
port  bill  arrived,  appointed  the  first  day  of  June,  the  day  on  which  the 
port  of  Boston  was  to  be  closed,  as  a  day  of  fasting,  humiliation  and 
prayer.  The  day  was  thus  observed  throughout  the  colonies,  and  ser- 
mons were  preached  adapted  to  the  occasion.  The  governor  of  Virginia, 
displeased  with  this  measure,  dissolved  the  assembly.  The  members, 
however,  before  they  separated,  recommended  to  their  committee  of  cor- 
respondence to  communicate  with  the  several  committees  of  the  other 
colonies,  on  the  expediency  of  appointing  deputies  to  meet  annually  in  a 


46  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

general  congress,  to  deliberate  on  those  general  measures  which  the 
united  interests  of  America  might  from  time  to  time  render  necessary 
This  proposition  was  readily  acceded  to  by  the  other  colonies. 

The  house  of  representatives  of  Massachusetts,  now  assembled  at 
Salem,  passed  resolutions  in  favor  of  the  proposed  congress,  and  recom* 
mending  to  the  people  of  that  province,  to  renounce  the  consumption  of 
tea  and  all  other  goods  imported  from  the  East  Indies,  and  Great  Britain^ 
until  the  grievances  of  the  colonies  should  be  redressed ;  and  recom- 
mending also  the  encouragement  of  domestic  manufactures.  The  house 
also  appointed  five  delegates  to  the  general  convention.  On  being  in* 
formed  of  the  proceedings  of  the  house,  the  governor  sent  his  secretary 
to  dissolve  the  assembly. 

On  the  5th  of  September,  1774,  the  convention  assembled  at  Phila* 
delphia.  This  congress  published  a  declaration  of  rights,  protesting 
against  the  right  of  G-reat  Britain  to  tax  the  colonies,  or  to  interfere 
with  their  internar  affairs  ;  with  a  statement  of  grievances,  declaring  the 
late  acts  of  parliament  to  be  violations  of  the  rights  of  the  colonists. 
They  also  prepared  and  signed  an  agreement,  in  which  they,  for  them- 
selves and  their  constituents,  were  pledged,  not  to  import  or  use  British 
goods  till  the  acts  complained  of  should  be  repealed.  And  if  these  acts 
should  not  be  repealed  by  the  10th  day  of  September,  1775,  no  goods 
were  to  be  exported  to  Great  Britain  or  her  West  India  colonies,  except 
rice  to  Europe.  Addresses  to  the  king  and  the  people  of  Great  Britain 
were  also  prepared,  and  an  address  to  the  people  of  the  colonies.  The 
congress  was  dissolved  on  the  26th  of  October ;  having  recommended 
that  another  congress  convene  on  the  10th  of  May  following,  if  a  redress 
of  grievances  should  not  render  it  unnecessary. 

The  determination  of  parliament,  which  met  soon  after  the  dissolution 
of  the  congress,  to  persevere  in  its  attempts  to  enforce  its  measures  in  the 
colonies,  removed  all  hope  of  redress  by  petition  or  remonstrance.  Pre* 
parations  now  began  to  be  made  for  resistance.  Gunpowder  was  manu- 
factured ;  the  militia  was  trained ;  and  military  stores  were  collected. 
In  April,  1775,  a  detachment  of  troops  was  sent  to  destroy  the  military 
stores  collected  at  Concord.  At  Lexington,  the  militia  were  collected 
to  oppose  the  British  forces.  They  were  fired  upon  by  the  British 
troops,  and  eight  men  were  killed.  Having  proceeded  to  Concord,  and 
destroyed  a  few  of  the  stores,  the  troops  returned,  and  were  pursued  by 
the  Americans  to  Boston. 

In  May,  1775,  a  second  congress  met  from  all  the  colonies.  It  was 
determined  to  organize  an  army ;  and  Washington  was  appointed  com- 
mander-in-chief of  the  American  forces.  Three  millions  of  dollars  of 
paper  money,  in  bills  of  credit,  were  authorized  to  be  issued  ;  for  the  re- 


TAXATION  OF  THE  COLONIES.  47 

demption  of  which  each  colony  was  to  pay  its  proportion,  and  the  united 
colonies  were  to  pay  such  part  of  the  quota  of  any  colony,  as  thd  colony 
should  fail  to  discharge.  A  general  post-office  was  established.  Con- 
gress also  published  a  declaration  of  the  causes  of  taking  up  arms,  and 
another  address  to  the  king,  entreating  a  change  of  measures,  and  an  ad- 
dress to  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  requesting  their  aid,  and  admon- 
ishing them  of  the  threatening  evils  of  a  separation.  The  petition  to  the 
king  was,  as  usual,  unavailing.  This  congress,  at  its  second  meeting,  (a 
recess  from  August  to  September  having  been  had,)  proceeded  in  its 
measures  for  resistance.  Kules  were  adopted  for  the  regulation  of  the 
navy ;  a  farther  emission  of  bills  was  authorized  ;  and  a  treasury  depart- 
ment was  established. 

The  colonies  being  declared  by  the  king  to  be  in  a  state  of  rebellion, 
war  measures  were  adopted  by  the  British  government.  In  December, 
parliament  passed  an  act  interdicting  all  trade  with  the  colonics,  and 
authorizing  the  capture  and  condemnation  of  all  American  vessels  and  their 
cargoes,  and  all  other  vessels  found  trading  in  any  port  in  the  colonics, 
as  if  they  were  the  vessels  of  open  enemies.  The  mass  of  the  American 
people  having  become  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  an  entire  separation 
from  the  parent  country,  congress,  on  the  10th  of  June,  1776,  appointed 
a  committee  to  prepare  a  declaration,  "  that  these  colonies  are,  and  of 
right  ought  to  be,  free  and  independent  states."  This  committee  con- 
sisted of  Thomas  JeffersoYi,  John  Adams,  Benjamin  Franklin,  Roger 
Sherman,  and  Robert  R.  Livingston.  The  resolution  of  independence 
was  adopted  on  the  2d  day  of  July;  and  on  the  4th,  congress  adopted 
the  Declaration  of  Independence. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE     GOVERNMENT    OF    THE    CONFEDERATION. TREATY    tVITH   FRANCE.— 

NEGOTIATION  WITH  GREAT  BRITAIN. PEACE. CALL  FOR  A  CONVENTION. 

Congress  soon  perceived  the  necessity  of  some  compact  between  the 
colonies,  in  order  to  give  effect  and  permanence  to  the  union,  and  to 
define  more  accurately  the  powers  of  the  congress.  A  plan  was  reported 
to  that  body  a  few  days  after  the  declaration  of  independence,  but  was 
not  adopted.  In  April,  1777,  the  subject  was  resumed ;  and  in  Novem- 
ber a  plan  was  agreed  on  by  congress.  This  instrument  was  called 
"  Articles  of  confederation  and  perpetual  union  between  the  states  of 

."     This  confederacy  was  to  be  styled,  "  The  United  States  of 

America."  Each  state  was  to  retain  its  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  inde- 
pendence, and  every  power  and  right  not  expressly  delegated  to  congress. 
The  states  entered  into  a  "  firm  league  of  friendship  with  each  other,  for 
their  common  defense,  the  security  of  their  liberties,  and  their  mutual 
and  general  welfare." 

Congress  was  composed  of  delegates,  not  less  than  two  nor  more  than 
seven,  from  each  state,  appointed  annually  by  its  legislature,  which  had 
power  to  recall  any  delegate  at  any  time  within  the  year,  and  send 
another  in  his  stead.  The  delegates  were  maintained  by  their  respective 
states.  In  determining  questions  in  congress,  each  state  had  one  vote ; 
and  that  vote  was  determined  by  a  majority  of  the  delegates. 

The  power  to  declare  war  and  peace,  to  make  requisitions  of  men  and 
money,  and  to  regulate  the  external  afi'airs  of  the  nation  generally,  was 
devolved  upon  congress.  Many  of  the  powers  of  congress,  as  well  as  the 
restrictions  upon  the  states,  were  the  same  as  under  the  present  consti- 
tution. Some  of  the  most  essential  powers,  however,  had  been  reserved 
to  the  states — ^powers,  the  want  of  which  constituted  the  principal  defect 
of  the  system,  as  will  hereafter  be  seen. 

Any  act  of  congress,  making  war,  granting  letters  of  marque  and 
reprisal,  coining  money,  emitting  bills,  borrowing  or  appropriating 
money,  and  for  certain  other  and  similar  purposes,  was  to  have  the  assent 
of  nine  states.  Other  questions  were  to  be  decided  by  a  majority  of  the 
states.  Congress  had  authority  to  appoint  a  committee,  denominated  "  a 
committee  of  the  states,"  to  consist  of  one  delegate  from  each  state ; 
which  committee,  or  any  nine  of  them,  had  authority  to  execute,  in  the 


THE    GOVERNMENT    OF    THE    CONFEDERATION.  49 

recess  of  congress,  such  of  the  powers  of  that  body  as,  by  the  consent 
of  nine  states,  congress  should  think  expedient  to  invest  them  with  ;  but  no 
power  was  to  be  delegated  to  this  committee,  for  which  the  voice  of  nine 
states  in  congress  was  requisite.  Every  state  was  to  abide  by  the  deter- 
mination of  congress  on  all  questions  submitted  to  them  by  the  confeder- 
ation. The  articles  of  the  confederation  were  to  be  observed  by  every 
state,  and  the  union  was  to  be  perpetual :  and  no  alteration  could  be 
made  in  any  of  them,  unless  agreed  to  by  congress,  and  afterwards  con- 
firmed by  the  legislature  of  every  state.  The  articles  were  to  be  proposed 
to  the  legislatures  of  all  the  states,  and  if  approved  by  them,  they  were 
advised  to  authorize  their  delegates  in  congress  to  ratify  the  same. 

It  was  not  to  be  presumed,  that  any  plan  of  union  could  have  been 
formed,  which  would  fully  accord  with  the  views  and  accommodate  the 
varied  and  even  conflicting  interests  of  thirteen  states.  Some  of  the 
states  adopted  the  articles  without  amendment.  Others  proposed  amend- 
ments to  be  made  to  them.  All,  however,  except  New  Jersey,  Delaware, 
and  Maryland,  instructed  their  delegates  to  ratify  and  sign  the  articles, 
even  if  the  proposed  amendments  should  be  rejected  by  congress.  Mary- 
land was  the  last  state  that  assented  to  the  ratification,  which  was  done 
the  first  of  March,  1781,  more  than  three  years  after  the  articles  had 
been  adopted  by  congress. 

The  lapse  of  a  few  years  proved  some  of  the  objections  to  the  articles 
to  have  been  well  founded,  as  will  appear  in  a  succeeding  chapter.  One 
of  these,  in  particular,  was,  that  the  power  of  regulating  commerce  with 
foreign  nations  had  not  been  vested  in  congress.  This  was  one  of  the 
numerous  objections  made  by  the  state  of  New  Jersey. 

Several  states  objected  that  no  provision  had  been  made  for  the  dis- 
position of  the  western  lands.  They  desired  that  congress  should  have 
power  to  fix  the  limits  of  such  states  as  claimed  to  the  Mississippi,  and 
to  dispose  of  the  lands  beyond  these  limits  for  the  benefit  of  the  union ; 
and  it  was  not  until  after  New  York  and  Virginia  had  ceded  their 
claims — the  former  to  all  lands  beyond  such  line  or  lines  as  congress 
should  judge  expedient ;  the  latter  to  all  north-west  of  the  Ohio — that 
congress  adopted  regulations  for  the  disposal  of  this  western  territory. 

In  May,  1776,  congress  adopted  a  resolution,  offered  by  John  Adams, 
recommending  to  the  assemblies  of  the  states  to  establish  such 
governments  as  their  circumstances  might  require.  Before  the  close  of 
the  next  year,  most  of  the  states  had  formed  new  constitutions.  Several 
of  the  states  had  already  done  so  when  the  recommendation  was  made. 
Under  these  constitutions,  the  legislatures  consisted  of  two  branches, 
except  in  Pennsylvania  and  Georgia.  The  representatives,  as  at  present, 
were  chosen  by  towns  in  New  England ;  in  the  other  states  by  counties. 


50  THE    AMEiT,ICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  other  branch,  called  in  some  states,  the  council,  in  others  the  senate, 
answered  for  the  council  in  the  colonial  governments.  In  New  Hamp- 
shire, Pennsylvania,  and  Delaware,  there  was  no  governor,  the  duties  of 
that  office  being  performed  by  a  committee,  or  council,  the  president  of 
which  was  president  of  the  state.  The  governors  in  most  of  the  states 
were  chosen  by  the  legislatures. 

In  the  winter  of  1778,  while  the  British  ministry  were  preparing  a 
plan  of  conciliation  to  be  proposed  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  a 
treaty  of  friendship  and  commerce  with  France  was  concluded  by  the 
American  commissioners  in  that  country ;  also  a  treaty  of  defensive 
alliance,  to  have  effect  in  case  Grreat  Britain  should  declare  war  against 
France.  On  the  13th  of  March,  the  ministry  were  informed  by  the 
French  minister  in  England,  that  a  treaty  of  friendship  and  commerce  had 
been  agreed  on  between  France  and  the  United  States  ;  and  that  measures 
would  be  taken  to  protect  the  commerce  of  the  two  countries.  Where- 
upon the  British  minister  at  Paris  was  recalled — an  act  which  is  some- 
times considered  tantamount  to  a  formal  declaration  of  war. 

The  desire,  however,  of  Great  Britain  to  discontinue  the  war  with  the 
United  States,  was  doubtless  quickened  by  their  alliance  with  so  formi- 
dable a  power  as  that  of  France.  Anxious  to  try  the  virtue  of  her  plan 
of  reconciliation,  without  delay,  copies  of  the  bills  containing  the  con- 
ciliatory propositions,  were  sent  to  the  United  States  before  they  were 


One  of  these  bills  proposed  not  to  impose  any  duty  or  tax  in  the  North 
American  colonies,  except  such  as  might  be  necessary  for  the  regulation 
of  commerce  ;  and  the  duties  were  to  be  applied  to  the  use  of  the  colonies. 
The  second  was  to  restore  the  ancient  charter  of  Massachusetts.  The 
third  authorized  the  appointment  of  commissioners  to  treat  concerning 
the  grievances  in  the  government  of  the  colonies.  Congress,  however, 
suspecting  it  to  be  the  intention  of  Great  Britain  merely  to  lull  the 
Americans  with  hopes  of  peace,  until  she  could  assemble  new  armies, 
determined  to  hold  no  conference  or  treaty  with  any  commissioners  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain,  unless  she  should  first  withdraw  her  fleets 
and  armies,  or  acknowledge  the  independence  of  the  states.  The  treaties 
with  France  arrived  in  Mo.y,  and  were  unanimously  ratified  by  congress. 
The  British  commissioners  soon  after  arrived,  but  congress,  adhering  to 
the  determination  not  to  receive  any  proposals,  except  upon  the  condi- 
tions mentioned,  the  attempt  at  conciliation  failed. 

In  the  summer  of  1778,  a  minister  plenipotentiary  arrived  from  France ; 
and  soon  after  Dr.  Franklin  was  sent  to  represent  the  United  States  in 
that  country.  Early  in  the  next  year,  Spain  offered  to  mediate  between 
France  and  Great  Britain.     France  accepted  the  offer  of  mediation,  but 


NEGOTIATION    WITH    GREAT    BRITAIN.  51 

Great  Britain  rejected  it;  and  in  June,  (1779,)  Spain  joined  France  in 
the  war.  She  declined,  however,  to  accede  to  the  treaties  between 
France  and  the  United  States.  Congress,  had  been  informed  of  the 
proflFered  mediation  by  Spain,  in  February,  and  appointed  a  committee 
to  whom  the  subject  was  referred,  and  who  reported  instructions  to  the 
American  minister,  prescribing  the  terms  upon  which  he  was  authorized 
to  negotiate  peace.  The  choice  of  a  minister  for  this  purpose  devolved 
upon  John  Adams. 

Congress  having  determined  to  make  proposals  to  Spain,  with  the  view 
of  inducing  her  to  accede  to  the  treaties  between  France  and  the  United 
States,  appointed  John  Jay  as  minister  to  Spain.  As  it  was  known  that 
Spain  was  anxious  to  secure  the  possession  of  the  extensive  territory 
which  she  claimed  in  North  America,  Mr.  Jay  was  instructed  to  offer 
her  a  guaranty  of  the  Floridas,  (in  case  she  should  succeed  in  her  attempt 
to  recover  them,)  provided  she  should  concur  with  France  and  the  United 
States  in  continuing  the  war  with  Great  Britain,  and  provided  that  the 
United  States  should  enjoy  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  Spain 
professed  to  desire  the  alliance,  but  required,  as  a  condition,  the  exclu- 
sive right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  the  possession  of  the  Flori- 
das, and  all  the  lands  east  of  the  Mississippi  and  the  Alleghany  mountains. 
Spain  denied  the  claim  of  the  United  States  to  any  lands  west  of  these 
mountains ;  and  as  it  was  the  intention  of  Spain  to  conquer  the  Floridas 
and  the  western  territory,  during  the  war  with  Great  Britain,  she  wished 
to  have  all  cause  of  future  dispute  between  Spain  and  the  United  States 
relative  to  these  lands  removed.  Several  of  the  states  claimed  to  the 
Mississippi,  both  by  virtue  of  their  charters,  and  by  the  treaty  of  1763. 
This  territory  having  been  ceded  by  France  to  Great  Britain  by  this 
treaty,  the  United  States,  by  the  revolution,  became  entitled  to  the  same; 
and  therefore  they  could  not  assent  to  the  requisitions  of  Spain. 

Subsequently,  however,  (1780,)  the  State  of  Virginia,  alarmed  at  the 
reverses  of  the  American  army  at  the  south,  and  desirous  of  securing  the 
aid  of  Spain,  requested  congress  to  alter  Mr.  Jay's  instructions.  Con- 
gress accordingly  authorized  Mr.  Jay  to  relinquish  the  right  of  navigating 
the  Mississippi  below  the  31st  degree  of  north  latitude,  a  free  navigation 
above  that  degree  being  acknowledged  and  guaranteed  to  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States.     This  proposition  also  was  rejected. 

In  1780,  the  empress  of  Russia  offered  to  the  British  court,  to  become 
mediatrix  between  the  belligerents  in  Europe.  At  the  request  of  Great 
Britain  the  emperor  of  Germany  was  associated  in  the  mediation.  In 
June,  1781,  congress  appointed  Dr.  Franklin,  Mr.  Jay,  Mr.  Laurens,  and 
Mr.  Jefferson,  to  join  Mr.  Adams,  as  representatives  of  the  United  States 
in  the  congress  which  was  to  meet  in  Vienna.     Great  Britain,  regarding 


52  THE   AMERICAN   STATESMAN. 

the  United  States  as  her  colonies,  refused  to  admit  them  as  partieis 
to  the  negotiation,  as  this  would  be  a  virtual  recognition  of  their 
independence.  The  American  ambassadors  refusing  to  appear  in  any 
other  character  than  that  of  ministers  of  an  independent  nation,  the 
mediation  was  ended. 

In  the  summer  of  the  next  year,  (1782,)  parliament  having  passed  an 
act  authorizing  the  king  to  negotiate  a  peace,  the  commissioners  of  the 
different  countries  concerned,  met  for  this  purpose  at  Paris.  When  the 
negotiation  commenced.  Dr.  Franklin  and  Mr.  Jay  only  were  present. 
After  the  negotiation  had  proceeded  to  an  advanced  stage,  Mr.  Adams 
arrived  from  Holland,  having  concluded  a  treaty  with  that  government. 
Mr.  Laurens  arrived  from  England  two  days  before  the  treaty  was  signed. 
Mr.  Jefferson,  owing  to  the  illness  of  his  wife,  remained  at  home.  The 
sagacity,  the  firmness,  and  the  diplomatic  skill  evinced  by  the  American 
commissioners  who  participated  in  the  negotiation,  have  been  seldom 
surpassed.  The  result  was  favorable  to  the  United  States.  All  that 
could  reasonably  be  demanded,  and  more  than  there  was  ground  to  hope 
for,  was  secured  by  the  treaty.  The  United  States  acquired  a  guaranty 
to  the  western  lands  back  to  the  Mississippi,  and  north  of  the  31st  degree 
of  north  latitude,  which  was  made  the  northern  line  of  Florida  on  that 
river.  They  were  also  to  retain  the  right  to  the  use  of  the  fisheries  on 
the  banks  of  Newfoundland,  and  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  in  all 
other  places  in  the  sea  where  the  inhabitants  of  both  countries  had 
been  accustomed  to  fish.  The  British  were  to  withdraw  their  armies, 
garrisons,  and  fleets,  from  the  United  States,  without  unnecessary  delay. 
The  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  from  its  head  to  the  ocean,  was  to  be 
free  to  both  parties.  Creditors  on  both  sides  were  to  be  permitted  to 
recover  their  debts  in  sterling  money. 

The  treaty  was  signed  by  the  parties  on  the  30th  of  November,  and 
was  to  take  effect  when  peace  should  have  been  concluded  between  Great 
Britain  and  France.  Treaties  between  these  countries  and  Spain  were 
signed  on  the  20th  of  January,  1783.  On  the  11th  of  April,  congress 
proclaimed  a  cessation  of  hostilities,  and,  on  the  15th,  ratified  the  treaty. 

The  achievement  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States,  was  not 
immediately  followed  by  the  advantages  that  had  been  anticipated.  It 
soon  became  manifest  that  something  more  was  essential  to  individual  and 
national  prosperity.  The  system  of  government  which  had  been  adopted 
during  the  war,  was  found  to  be  ill  adapted  to  a  state  of  peace.  The  princi- 
pal defect  of  the  confederation  consisted  in  its  weakness.  It  intrusted  to 
congress  the  right  to  declare  war ;  but  it  did  not  confer  upon  that  body 
the  power  to  raise  the  means  of  prosecuting  a  war.  It  was  capable  of 
contracting  debts,  and  of  pledging  the  public  faith  for  their  payment : 


FINANCIAL    EMBARRASSMENTS.  53 

but  it  had  not  the  means  of  discharging  its  obligations.  Congress  had 
no  power  to  lay  taxes  and  collect  revenue  for  the  public  service.  It 
could  only  ascertain  the  sums  of  money  necessary  to  be  raised,  and  appor- 
tion to  each  state  its  quota  or  proportion.  The  power  to  lay  and  collect 
the  taxes  was  reserved  to  the  states. 

Hence  it  appears  that  the  confederation  had  little  more  than  advisory 
powers  ;  and  that  the  operations  of  the  government  depended  upon  the 
good  will  of  thirteen  distinct  and  independent  sovereignties.  As  a 
natural  consequence,  delays  in  collecting  taxes  were  not  unfrequent. 
Even  during  the  war,  under  the  pressure  of  a  common  danger,  the  requi- 
sitions of  congress  upon  the  states  for  men  and  money  to  carry  on  the 
war,  were  often  either  tardily  obeyed,  or  entirely  disregarded ;  and,  but 
for  the  loans  which  were  fortunately  obtained  by  congress  from  France 
and  Holland,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  war  could  have  been  successfully 
prosecuted.  After  the  return  of  peace,  congress  was  unable  to  obtain 
from  the  states  money  sufficient  to  pay  even  the  interest  of  the  public 
debt ;  and  the  affairs  of  the  country  were  in  a  state  of  extreme  embar- 
rassment. The  federal  treasury  was  empty ;  the  faith  of  the  nation 
broken ;  the  public  credit  sunk,  or  rapidly  sinking,  and  the  public 
burthens  increasing. 

The  congress  of  1783,  deeply  solicitous  for  the  honor  and  interests  of 
the  nation,  agreed  upon  a  measure,  the  object  of  which  was  "  to  restore 
and  support  public  credit,"  by  obtaining  from  the  states  "  substantive 
funds  for  funding  the  whole  debt  of  the  United  States."  These  funds 
were  to  be  raised  in  part  by  duties  on  goods  imported,  and  in  part  by 
internal  taxation.  To  the  amount  necessary  for  this  purpose,  each  state 
was  to  contribute  in  proportion  to  its  population. 

This  measure  was  recommended  to  the  several  states,  and  the  recom- 
mendation was  accompanied  by  an  address  prepared  by  a  committee,  con- 
sisting of  Mr.  Madison,  Mr.  Hamilton,  and  Mr.  Ellsworth,  urging  its 
adoption  by  considerations  of  justice,  good  faith,  and  the  national  honor. 
Gen.  Washington  also,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  governors  of  the  sev- 
eral states  on  the  condition  of  public  affairs,  took  occasion  to  add  the 
weight  of  his  influence  to  that  of  congress,  in  favor  of  the  plan.  Although 
a  favorable  impression  was  made  by  this  appeal  from  one  who  shared  so 
largely  the  public  confidence  and  esteem,  the  recommendation  did  not 
receive  the  assent  of  all  the  states. 

Congress,  however,  continued  to  urge  the  measure  upon  the  states, 
until  1786,  when  the  plan  was  materially  modified.  That  part  of  it 
which  applied  for  the  internal  taxes  having  met  with  the  greatest  opposi- 
tion, congress,  deeming  a  partial  compliance  with  the  original  recom- 
mendation highly  desirable  at  such  a  crisis,  requested  authority  "to  carry 


54  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

into  effect  that  part  only  which  related  to  import  duties."  With  this 
request,  the  states,  except  New  York,  promptly  complied.  This  state 
also  had  passed  an  act  on  the  subject,  but  denied  to  the  federal  govern- 
ment the  power  to  collect  the  duties.  It  reserved  to  itself  not  only  this 
right,  but  the  right  of  paying  the  duties  in  its  own  bills  of  credit  which 
it  had  emitted,  and  which  were  liable  to  depreciation.  The  governor, 
George  Clinton,  was  requested  to  call  a  special  meeting  of  the  legislature 
to  reconsider  the  subject.  The  governor  replied,  that  he  had  power  to 
convene  the  legislature  only  on  extraordinary  occasions ;  and  as  this  sub- 
ject had  already  been  before  them,  the  occasion  was  not  one  that  would 
authorize  the  calling  of  a  special  session :  consequently  the  plan  was 
defeated. 

Another  material  defect  of  the  confederation,  was  the  want  of  power 
to  regulate  foreign  and  domestic  commerce.  Indispensable  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  object,  is  the  power  to  establish  a  uniform  system  of 
duties.  Each  state  having  reserved  the  right  to  regulate  its  own  trade, 
imposed  upon  foreign  productions,  as  well  as  upon  those  from  its  sister 
states,  such  duties  as  its  own  exclusive  interests  seemed  to  dictate. 
Hence,  a  rate  of  duties  which  was  favorable  to  the  citizens  of  one  state, 
was  deemed  by  those  of  other  states  highly  prejudicial  to  them.  The 
jealousies,  rivalries,  and  mutual  resentments  to  which  this  system  gave 
rise,  caused  apprehensions  of  serious  collision  between  some  of  the  states. 

Foreign  nations,  availing  themselves  of  the  advantages  to  be  derived 
from  the  discordant  legislation  of  the  states,  passed  such  laws  as  they 
judged  most  likely  to  destroy  our  commerce  and  to  extend  their  own.  The 
rigorous  policy  of  Great  Britain  operated  more  unfavorably  than  that  of 
any  other  nation.  The  trade  with  the  British  West  India  colonies  was 
prohibited ;  and,  by  enforcing  her  navigation  acts,  which  secured  special 
privileges  to  British  shipping,  our  navigation  was  almost  annihilated. , 
Foreign  goods  and  vessels  were  freely  admitted  into  the  states,  while 
ours  were  heavily  burthened  with  duties  in  foreign  ports.  American 
tradr  being  thus  subject  to  the  control  of  foreign  legislation,  the 
prices  of  imported  goods  were  enhanced,  and  those  of  our  exports  were 
reduced  at  the  will  of  foreigners ;  and  the  little  money  still  in  the  hands 
of  our  citizens  was  rapidly  passing  into  the  pockets  of  British  merchants 
and  manufacturers. 

To  counteract  the  effects  of  this  system  of  Great  Britain  upon  our 
trade,  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  oppose  her  commerce  with  similar 
restrictions.  It  was  believed  that  restraints  upon  her  trade  would  induce 
her  to  relax  the  rigor  of  her  policy.  But  the  absence  of  all  power  in 
the  federal  government  to  regulate  commerce,  and  the  difficulty  of  pre- 
vailing upon  thirteen  independent  rival  states  to  concur  in  any  effective 


INFRACTIONS  OF  THE  TREATY  OF  FEAOE.  55 

measure  of  this  kind,  rendered  the  object  hopeless.  Congress  recom- 
mended to  the  states,  (1784,)  to  authorize  the  general  government,  for 
the  term  of  fifteen  years,  to  prohibit  the  importation  or  exportation  of 
goods,  in  vessels  belonging  to,  or  navigated  by,  the  subjects  of  any  power 
with  whom  the  United  States  had  not  formed  commercial  treaties ;  and 
to  prohibit  the  subjects  of  any  foreign  nation,  unless  authorized  by 
treaty,  from  importing  into  the  United  States  any  goods  not  the  produce 
or  manufacture  of  the  nation  whose  subjects  they  were.  But  the  requi- 
site power  could  not  be  obtained. 

Endeavors  were  also  made  to  obtain  relief  by  forming  commercial 
treaties  with  foreign  powers ;  and  commissioners  were  appointed  for  that 
purpose.  Principles  upon  which  treaties  were  to  be  formed,  drawn  up 
by  Mr.  Jefferson,  were  adopted ;  and  John  Adams,  Dr.  Franklin,  and 
Mr.  Jefferson,  (the  latter  in  the  place  of  Mr.  Jay,  who  was  about  to 
return  to  the  United  States,)  were  authorized  to  negotiate  treaties  con- 
formable to  those  principles.  With  none  of  the  principal  powers  of 
Europe,  however,  was  any  such  treaty  effected.  In  February,  1785, 
John  Adams,  then  in  Europe,  was  appointed  minister  plenipotentiary  to 
Great  Britain,  to  settle  our  commercial  relations  with  that  country  upon 
terms  more  advantageous  to  the  United  States,  as  well  as  to  adjust  cer- 
tain other  difficulties  that  had  arisen  between  the  two  countries.  But 
the  mission  in  respect  to  both  objects  was  unsuccessful.  Great  Britain 
having  already  every  advantage  she  could  desire,  and  aware  that  the 
United  States,  under  the  confederation,  could  neither  form  a  treaty  that 
would  be  binding  upon  individual  states,  nor  countervail  her  restrictive 
policy,  declined  entering  into  a  treaty  by  which  she  would  be  sure  to 
yield  something  without  an  equivalent. 

The  difficulties  to  which  allusion  has  just  been  made,  were  the  non- 
fulfillment and  alleged  infractions  of  the  treaty  of  peace.  The  United 
States  complained  that  the  western  military  posts  were  still  occupied  by 
the  British,  contrary  to  an  express  provision  of  the  treaty ;  and  that  the 
retiring  British  army  had  carried  away  slaves  belonging  to  the  United 
States.  Great  Britain,  on  the  other  hand,  alleged  that  some  of  the  states 
had  interposed  obstacles  to  the  collection  of  British  debts,  in  violation 
of  a  treaty  stipulation;  and  that  certain  other  articles  of  the  treaty 
had  not  been  observed.  Congress,  to  remove  all  just  ground  of  com- 
plaint on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  recommended  to  the  states  the  repeal 
of  all  laws  repugnant  to  the  treaty  of  peace,  which  was  accordingly 
done  by  all  the  states  in  which  such  laws  existed.  Mr.  Adams  continued 
in  England  until  October,  1787,  when,  the  British  court  still  declining 
to  enter  into  a  commercial  treaty,  or  even  to  appoint  a  minister  to  the 
United  States,  he  was,  at  his  own  request,  recalled. 


56  ^  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Soon  after  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Adams,  in  1785,  Dr.  Franklin, 
minister  to  France,  after  an  absence  of  nine  years,  having  obtained  leave 
to  return  home,  Mr.  Jefferson  was  appointed  in  his  place.  In  March, 
1784,  Mr.  Jay,  in  anticipation  of  his  return  from  Europe,  was  appointed 
secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  the  office  having  been  vacated  by  the  resigna- 
tion of  Mr.  Livingston. 

About  this  time  a  dispute  arose  with  Spain  concerning  boundaries  and 
the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  The  Floridas  having  been  ceded  to 
Spain  by  Great  Britain,  the  former  claimed  a  more  northern  boundary 
to  her  territory,  and  the  right  to  exclude  Americans  from  the  navigation 
of  the  Mississippi.  In  the  summer  of  1 785,  a  negotiation  was  com- 
menced between  Mr.  Jay,  secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  and  the  Spanish 
minister,  Don  Diego  Grardoqui,  recently  arrived.  Without  having  reached 
a  conclusion  before  the  formation  of  the  constitution,  the  negotiation  was 
suspended,  to  be  renewed  under  the  new  government. 

The  condition  of  the  country  had  become  almost  desperate,  and  was 
evidently  approaching,  if  it  had  not  already  reached,  a  crisis.  The  im- 
mense debt  contracted  by  congress  and  the  states  individually,  during 
the  war,  was  pressing  heavily  upon  the  people ;  and  their  embarrassment 
was  greatly  increased  by  private  indebtedness.  Relief  was  attempted  in 
some  states  by  the  issue  of  paper  money ;  in  others,  personal  property, 
at  an  apprized  value,  was  made  a  tender  in  payment  of  debts. 

Driven  to  desperation  by  customs,  taxes,  and  excises  in  the  state  of 
Massachusetts,  to  meet  the  public  engagements,  and  by  prosecutions  at 
law  for  private  debts,  a  large  number  of  the  people  in  some  parts  of  that 
state  rose  in  opposition  to  the  laws.  In  several  counties,  proceedings  in 
the  courts  of  justice  were  obstructed ;  and  fears  were  entertained  that 
the  government  would  be  overthrown.  So  formidable  was  the  insurrec- 
tion, that  the  federal  government  was  applied  to  for  aid  in  suppressing 
it.  But  by  the  vigorous  measures  of  the  state  authorities,  the  rebellion 
was  quelled  without  the  aid  of  the  general  government.  The  insurgents 
numbered  about  two  thousand.  Their  chief  leader  was  Daniel  Shays. 
Hence  this  occurrence  is  usually  designated,  "  Shays'  rebellion,"  or 
"Shays' insurrection."  Fourteen  of  the  insurgents  were  convicted  of 
treason,  and  sentenced  to  death ;  and  a  large  number  were  convicted  of 
sedition.  But  to  such  extent  did  they  share  the  sympathies  of  the  peo- 
ple^ as  to  render  their  execution  unsafe.  Moderate  penalties  only  were 
imposed. 

The  pecuniary  distress  of  the  country  was  greatly  aggravated  by 
large  importations  of  foreign  goods,  under  circumstances  which  deprived 
the  people  of  the  means  of  paying  for  them,  and  which  it  was  impossible 
to  avoid.     The  market  for  agricultural  products  which  the  armies  of  the 


CALL    FOR    A    CONVENTION.  57 

several  belligerant  nations  had  furnished  during  the  war,  no  longer  exist- 
ed. Great  Britain  had  not  only  subjected  our  products  to  ruinous  duties 
in  her  ports,  but  prohibited  our  trade  with  her  West  India  colonies, 
which  had  furnished  the  principal  means  of  paying  for  British  goods. 
The  non-importation  and  non-consumption  agreements,  and  the  war,  had 
created  and  encouraged  domestic  manufactures,  which  were  now  supplanted 
by  foreign  fabrics,  admitted  almost  duty  free.  The  imports  from  Great 
Britain,  in  1784  and  1785,  amounted  in  value  to  thirty  millions  of  dollars, 
while  the  exports  from  the  United  States  to  that  country  were  only  nine 
millions ;  and  there  was  no  power  in  the  government  to  restrain  this  ex- 
cessive importation,  or  to  countervail  the  restrictions  upon  our  commerce. 

The  impotence  of  the  government  began  to  appear  soon  after  the 
articles  of  confederation  had  been  adopted;  and  a  convention  to  revise 
and  amend  them  was  recommended  by  several  of  the  state  legislatures. 
But  this  recommendation  was  not  generally  responded  to.  One  of  the 
causes  which  prevented  an  earlier  revision  of  the  articles,  was  state 
jealousy ;  or,  as  expressed  by  Washington,  "  the  disinclination  of  the 
individual  states  to  yield  competent  powers  to  congress  for  the  federal 
governments,  and  their  unreasonable  jealousy  of  that  body  and  of  one 
another."  And  as  no  alteration  could  be  made  without  the  assent  of  all 
the  states,  there  was  little  encouragement  to  any  efforts  for  a  convention. 

No  relief  being  expected  from  an  amendment  of  the  confederation, 
the  legislatures  of  Maryland  and  Virginia,  in  1785,  appointed  commis- 
sioners to  form  a  compact  respecting  the  navigation  of  the  rivers  Potomac 
and  Roanoke,  and  part  of  the  Chesapeake  bay.  The  commissioners  met 
at  Alexandria,  in  March ;  but  for  the  want  of  adequate  power  to  effect 
any  important  object,  they  agreed  to  recommend  to  their  respective 
governments  the  appointment  of  new  commissioners  to  make  arrange- 
ments, subject  to  the  assent  of  congress,  for  maintaining  a  naval  force  in 
the  Chesapeake,  and  to  fix  a  tariff  of  duties  on  imports  which  should  be 
enforced  by  the  laws  of  both  states.  The  legislature  of  Virginia,  when 
acting  upon  these  propositions,  passed  a  resolution  requesting  all  the 
states  to  send  deputies  to  the  meeting,  to  cooperate  on  the  subject  of 
duties  on  imports.  And  a  few  days  after,  viz.  :  on  the  21st  of  January, 
1786,  another  resolution  was  adopted,  proposing  a  convention  of  commis- 
sioners from  all  the  states,  to  take  into  consideration  the  state  of  trade, 
and  the  expediency  of  a  uniform  system  of  commercial  regulations  for 
their  common  interest  and  permanent  harmony.  The  commissioners 
met  at  Annapolis,  in  September,  the  place  and  time  proposed.  Only 
Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  New  Jersey,  and  New  York,  were 
represented.  Delegates  were  appointed  by  New  Hampshire,  Mas- 
sachusetts, Rhode  Island,  and  North  Carolina,  but  they  did  not  attend. 
Finding  their  powers  too  limited,  and  the  number  of  states  represented 


58  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

too  small  to  effect  the  objects  contemplated,  tlie  convention  framed  a  re- 
port to  be  made  to  tlieir  respective  states,  and  also  to  be  laid  before 
congress,  advising  the  calling  of  a  general  convention  of  deputies  from 
all  the  states,  to  meet  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  second  Monday  in  May, 
1787,  for  a  more  extensive  revision  of  the  articles  of  confederation. 

Virginia  was  the  first  state  that  appointed  delegates  to  the  proposed  con- 
vention, and  was  followed  by  several  others  before  the  report  of  the  Annap- 
olis convention  was  disposed  of  by  congress.  A  resolution  was  passed  by 
that  body  in  February,  1787,  concurring  in  the  recommendation  for  a  con- 
vention.    Delegates  were  appointed  by  all  the  states  except  Hhode  Island. 

It  has  been  already  stated,  that  the  states  of  New  York  and  Virginia 
had  made  cessions  of  their  western  lands  to  the  general  government.  In 
1783,  congress  requested  that  those  states  which  had  not  alreadv  done 
so,  should  cede  portions  of  their  territory,  as  a  fund  to  aid  in  payment 
of  the  public  debt.  Connecticut,  in  1784,  ceded  her  claim  to  all  lands 
lying  one  hundred  and  twenty  miles  west  of  the  western  boundary  of 
Pennsylvania — the  portion  reserved,  being  that  which  is  known  as  the 
Connecticut  or  "Western  Reserve."  Massachusetts  ceded  in  1785. 
Having  by  these  cessions  come  into  possession  of  all  the  lands  north- 
west of  the  Ohio,  congress,  in  July,  1787,  while  the  constitutional  con- 
vention was  in  session,  passed  an  ordinance  establishing  a  form  of 
government  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory. 

As  early  as  1784,  Mr.  Jefferson,  then  a  member  of  congress,  submit- 
ted a  plan  of  government  for  all  the  western  territory,  from  the  southern 
to  the  northern  boundary  of  the  United  States,  all  of  which  was  ex- 
pected to  be  ceded  by  the  states  claiming  the  same.  By  this  plauj 
seventeen  states  were  to  be  formed  from  this  territory.  One  of  its  pro- 
visions was,  "that,  after  the  year  1800,  there  shall  be  neither  slavery 
nor  involuntary  servitude  in  any  of  the  said  states,  other  than  in  the 
punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted." 
The  report,  embraced  in  a  series  of  resolutions,  was  adopted,  except  the 
proviso ;  which,  not  having  seven  states  in  its  favor,  was  struck  out.  The 
four  New  England  states,  with  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  voted  for 
it ;  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  South  Carolina  against  it.  North  Carolina 
was  divided ;  New  Jersey  had  only  one  delegate  present,  and  therefore 
had  no  vote ;  and  Delaware  and  Georgia  were  absent.  This  rejected 
provision  was  again  proposed,  the  next  year,  by  Mr.  Rufus  King,  (then 
of  Massachusetts,)  with  the  additional  provision,  "  that  this  regulation 
shall  be  an  article  of  compact,  and  remain  a  fundamental  principle  of 
the  constitutions  between  the  thirteen  original  states,  and  each  of  the 
states  described  in  the  resolve."     The  proposition  again  failed. 

The  ordinance  of  1787,  embracing  in  part  the  plan  submitted  by  Mr. 
Jefferson,  in  1784,  was  reported  by  Nathan  Dane,  of   Massachusetts. 


MR.  Jefferson's  anti-slavery  proviso.  59 

The  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  powers  were  vested  in  a  governor 
and  three  judges,  who,  with  a  secretary,  were  to  be  appointed  by  congress ; 
the  governor  for  three  years,  the  judges  during  good  behavior.  The 
laws  of  the  territory  were  to  be  such  laws  of  the  original  states,  as  the 
governor  and  judges  should  think  proper  to  adopt.  These  laws  were  to 
be  in  force  until  disapproved  by  congress.  When  the  territory  should 
contain  five  thousand  free  male  inhabitants  of  full  age,  there  was  to  be  a 
legislature,  to  consist  of  two  branches ;  a  house  of  representatives,  the 
members  to  be  chosen  from  the  several  counties  or  townships,  for  the 
term  of  two  years,  and  a  legislative  council  of  five  persons  who  were  to 
hold  their  offices  for  five  years,  and  to  be  appointed  by  congress  out  of 
ten  persons  previously  nominated  by  the  house  of  representatives  of  the 
territory.  All  laws  were  required  to  be  consistent  with  the  ordinance, 
and  to  have  the  assent  of  the  governor.  The  ordinance  concludes  with 
six  articles  of  compact  between  the  original  states  and  the  people  of  the 
territory,  to  be  unalterable  except  by  common  consent.  The  first  secures 
entire  religious  freedom;  the  second,  trial  by  jury,  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus^  and  the  other  fundamental  rights  usually  inserted  in  bills  of  rights ; 
the  third  provided  for  the  encouragement  and  support  of  schools,  and  en- 
joined good  faith  towards  the  Indians  ;  the  fourth  placed  the  new  states  to 
be  formed  out  of  the  territory  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  old  ones,  both 
in  respect  to  their  privileges  and  their  burdens,  and  reserved  to  the  Uni- 
ted States  the  right  to  dispose  of  the  soil ;  the  fifth  authorized  the  future 
division  of  the  territory  into  not  less  than  three  nor  more  than  five  states, 
each  state  to  be  admitted  into  the  union,  when  it  should  contain  sixty 
thousand  free  inhabitants ;  the  sixth  was  the  anti-slavery  proviso  intro- 
duced by  Mr.  Jefferson  in  1784,  so  modified,  however,  as  to  take  effect 
immediately. 

This  ordinance,  which  left  the  territory  south  of  the  Ohio,  (then  not 
yet  ceded,)  subject  to  future  regulation,  received  the  unanimous  vote  of 
the  eight  states  present :  Massachusetts,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Dela- 
ware, Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia.  One 
member  only  (Mr.  Yates,  of  New  York)  voted  in  the  negative ;  that 
state  being  determined  in  the  affirmative  by  the  votes  of  his  two  col- 
leagues. This  unanimous  support  of  this  measure  by  the  southern 
states  present,  is  variously  accounted  for.  Mr.  Benton,  (View,  vol.  1,  p. 
135,)  says  :  "  The  fact  is,  that  the  south  only  delayed  its  vote  for  the  anti- 
slavery  clause  in  the  ordinance  for  want  of  the  provision  in  favor  of  re- 
covering fugitives  from  service."  If  so,  his  information  is  derived  from 
some  other  source  than  the  journals  of  congress.  In  the  absence  of 
positive  information,  the  more  probable  reason  is,  that  Mr.  Jefferson's 
proposition  embraced  the  territory  south  of  the  Ohio,  from  which,  it  ia 
presumed,  the  south  did  not  wish  slavery  to  be  excluded 


CHAPTEK  IV. 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  CONVENTION  IN  FORMING  THE  CONSTITUTUN. 

The  day  appointed  for  the  assembling  of  the  convention  to  revise  the 
articles  of  confederation,  was  the  14th  of  May,  1787.  Delegations 
from  a  majority  of  the  states  did  not  attend  until  the  25th ;  on  which 
day  the  business  of  the  convention  commenced.  The  delegates  from 
New  Hampshire  did  not  arrive  until  the  23d  of  July.  Rhode  Island 
did  not  appoint  delegates. 

A  political  body  combining  greater  talents,  wisdom,  and  patriotism, 
or  whose  labors  have  produced  results  more  beneficial  to  the  cause  of 
civil  and  religious  liberty,  has  probably  never  assembled.  The  two  most 
distinguished  members  were  "Washington  and  Franklin ;  to  whom  the 
eyes  of  the  convention  were  directed  for  a  presiding  officer.  "Washington, 
having  been  nominated  by  Lewis  Morris,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  elected 
president  of  the  convention.     William  Jackson  was  appointed  secretary. 

The  rules  of  proceeding  adopted  by  the  convention,  were  chiefly  the 
same  as  those  of  congress.  A  quorum  was  to  consist  of  the  deputies  of 
ftt  least  seven  states ;  and  all  questions  were  to  be  decided  by  the  greater 
number  of  those  which  were  fully  represented — at  least  two  delegates 
being  necessary  to  constitute  a  full  representation.  Another  rule  was 
the  injunction  of  secrecy  upon  all  their  proceedings. 

The  first  important  question  determined  by  the  convention  was, 
whether  the  confederation  should  be  amended,  or  a  new  government 
formed.  The  delegates  of  some  states  had  been  instructed  only  to  amend. 
And  the  resolution  of  congress  sanctioning  the  call  for  a  convention, 
recommended  it  "  for  the  sole  and  express  purpose  of  revising  the  articles 
of  confederation."  A  majority,  however,  considering  the  plan  of  con- 
federation radically  defective,  resolved  to  form  "  a  national  government, 
consisting  of  a  supreme  judicial,  legislative,  and  executive."  The  ob- 
jections to  the  new  system  on  the  ground  of  previous  instructions,  was 
deemed  of  little  weight,  as  any  plan  that  might  be  agreed  on,  would 
necessarily  be  submitted  to  the  people  of  the  states  for  ratification. 

In  conformity  with  this  decision,  Edmund  Randolph,  of  Virginia,  on 
the  29th  of  May,  offered  fifteen  resolutions,  containing  the  outlines  of  a 
plan  of  government  for  the   consideration  of  the  convention.     These 


FORMING   THE    CONSTITUTION.  61 

resolutions  proposed — That  the  voice  of  eacTi  state  in  the  national  legis- 
lature, should  be  in  proportion  to  its  taxes,  or  to  its  free  population ; 
that  the  legislature  should  consist  of  two  branches,  the  members  of  the 
first  to  be  elected  by  the  people  of  the  states,  those  of  the  second  to  be 
chosen  by  the  members  of  the  first,  out  of  a  proper  number  of  persons 
nominated  by  the  state  legislatures ;  and  the  national  legislature  to  be 
vested  with  all  the  powers  of  congress  under  the  confederation,  with  the 
additional  power  to  legislate  in  all  cases  to  which  the  separate  states 
were  incompetent ;  to  negative  all  state  laws  which  should,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  national  legislature,  be  repugnant  to  the  articles  of  union,  or  to 
any  treaty  subsisting  under  them ;  to  call  out  the  force  of  the  union 
against  any  state  refusing  to  fulfill  its  duty  : 

That  there  should  be  a  national  executive,  to  be  chosen  by  the  national 
legislature,  and  to  be  ineligible  a  second  time.  The  executive,  with  a 
convenient  number  of  the  national  judiciary,  was  to  constitute  a  council 
of  revision,  with  a  qualified  negative  upon  all  laws,  state  and  national : 

A  national  judiciary,  the  judges  to  hold  their  offices  during  good 
behavior. 

In  discussing  this  plan,  called  the  "  Yirginia  plan,"  the  lines  of  party 
were  distinctly  drawn.  We  have  already  had  occasion  to  allude  to  the 
jealousy,  on  the  part  of  states,  of  the  power  of  the  general  government. 
A  majority  of  the  peculiar  friends  of  state  rights  in  the  convention,  were 
from  the  small  states.  These  states,  apprehending  danger  from  the 
overwhelming  power  of  a  strong  national  government,  as  well  as  from  the 
combined  power  of  the  large  states  represented  in  proportion  to  their 
wealth  and  population,  were  unwilling  to  be  deprived  of  their  equal 
vote  in  Congress.  Not  less  strenuously  did  the  friends  of  the  national 
plan  insist  on  a  proportional  representation.  This  opposition  of  senti- 
ment, which  divided  the  convention  into  parties,  did  not  terminate  with 
the  proceedings  of  that  body,  but  has  at  times  marked  the  politics  of  the 
nation,  down  to  the  present  day.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  however,  that 
the  most  jealous  regard  for  state  rights  now  prevails  in  states  in  which 
the  plan  of  a  national  government  then  found  its  ablest  and  most  zealous 
advocates. 

The  plan  suggested  by  Mr.  Randolph's  resolutions,  was  the  subject 
of  deliberation  for  about  two  weeks,  when,  having  been  in  several  respects 
modified  in  committee,  and  reduced  to  form,  it  was  reported  to  the  house. 
It  contained  the  following  provisions : 

A  national  legislature  to  consist  of  two  branches,  the  first  to  be  elected 
by  the  people  for  three  years ;  the  second  to  be  chosen  by  the  state 
legislatures  for  seven  years,  the  members  of  both  branches  to  be  appor- 
tioned on  the  basis  finally  adopted ;  the  legislature  to  possess  powers 


62  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

nearly  the  same  as  those  originally  proposed  by  Mr.  Randolph.  The 
executive  was  to  consist  of  a  single  person  to  be  chosen  by  the  national 
legislature  for  seven  years,  and  limited  to  a  single  term,  and  to  have  a 
qualified  veto  ;  all  bills  not  approved  by  hira,  to  be  passed  by  a  vote  of 
three-fourths  of  both  houses  in  order  to  become  laws.  A  national  judi- 
ciary to  consist  of  a  supreme  court,  the  judges  to  be  appointed  by  the 
second  branch  of  the  legislature  for  the  term  of  good  behavior,  and  of 
such  inferior  courts  as  congress  might  think  proper  to  establish. 

This  plan  being  highly  objectionable  to  the  state  rights  party,  a  scheme 
agreeable  to  their  views  was  submitted  by  Mr.  Patterson,  of  New  Jersey. 
This  scheme,  called  the  "  New  Jersey  plan,"  proposed  no  alteration  in 
the  constitution  of  the  legislature,  but  simply  to  give  it  the  additional 
power,  to  raise  a  revenue  by  duties  on  foreign  goods  imported,  and  by 
stamp  and  postage  taxes ;  to  regulate  trade  with  foreign  nations  and 
among  the  states ;  and,  when  requisitions  made  upon  the  states  were  not 
complied  with,  to  collect  them  by  its  own  authority.  The  plan  proposed 
a  federal  executive,  to  consist  of  a  number  of  person  selected  by  congress  ; 
and  a  federal  judiciary,  the  judges  to  be  appointed  by  the  executive,  and 
to  hold  their  ofiices  during  good  behavior. 

The  Virginia  and  New  Jersey  plans  were  now  (June  19th)  referred 
to  a  new  committee  of  the  whole.  Another  debate  arose,  in  which  the 
powers  of  the  convention  was  the  principal  subject  of  discussion.  It  was 
again  urged  that  their  power  had  been,  by  express  instruction,  limited  to 
an  amendment  of  the  existing  confederation,  and  that  the  new  system 
would  not  be  adopted  by  the  states.  The  vote  was  taken  on  the  19th, 
and  the  propositions  of  Mr.  Patterson  were  rejected  ;  only  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  and  Delaware,  voting  in  the  affirmative ;  seven  states  in.  the 
negative  ;  and  the  members  from  Maryland  equally  divided. 

Mr.  Randolph's  propositions,  as  modified  and  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  were  now  taken  up  and  considered  separately.  The 
division  of  the  legislature  into  two  branches,  a  house  of  representatives 
and  a  senate,  was  agreed  to  almost  unanimously,  one  state  only,  Penn- 
sylvania, dissenting ;  but  the  proposition  to  apportion  the  members  to 
the  states,  according  to  population,  was  violently  opposed.  The  small 
states  insisted  strenuously  on  retaining  an  equal  vote  in  the  legislature ; 
but  at  length  consented  to  a  proportional  representation  in  the  house,  on 
condition  that  they  should  have  an  equal  vote  in  the  senate. 

Accordingly,  on  the  29th  of  June,  Mr.  Ellsworth,  of  Connecticut, 
offered  a  motion,  "  that  in  the  second  branch,  each  state  shall  have  an 
equal  vote."  This  motion  gave  rise  to  a  protracted  and  vehement  de- 
bate. It  was  supported  by  Messrs,  Ellsworth,  Baldwin,  of  Georgia, 
Bradford,  of  Delaware,  and  others.     It  was  urged  on  the  ground  of  the 


FORMING    THE    CONSTITUTION.  63 

necessity  of  a  compromise  between  the  friends  of  the  confederation  and  ^ 
those  of  a  national  government,  and  as  a  measure  which  would  secure 
tranquillity,  and  meet  the  objections  of  the  larger  states.  Equal  repre- 
sentation in  one  branch  would  make  the  government  partly  federal,  and 
a  proportional  representation  in  the  other,  would  make  it  partly  national. 
Equality  in  the  second  branch  would  enable  the  small  states  to  protect 
themselves  against  the  combined  power  of  the  large  states.  Fears  were 
expressed,  that  without  this  advantage  to  the  small  states,  it  would  be  in 
the  power  of  a  few  large  states  to  control  the  rest.  The  small  states,  it 
was  said,  must  possess  this  power  of  self-defense,  or  be  ruined. 

The  motion  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  Madison,  Wilson,  of  Pennsylvania, 
King,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Dr.  Franklin.  Mr.  Madison  thought  there 
was  no  danger  from  the  quarter  from  which  it  was  apprehended.  The 
great  source  of  danger  to  the  general  government  was  the  opposing  inter- 
ests of  the  north  and  the  south,  as  would  appear  from  the  votes  of  congress, 
which  had  been  divided  by  geographical  lines,  not  according  to  the  size 
of  the  states.  Mr.  Wilson  objected  to  state  equality,  that  it  would 
enable  one-fourth  of  the  union  to  control  three-fourths.  Eespecting  the 
danger  of  the  three  larger  states  combining  together  to  give  rise  to  a  mon- 
archy or  an  aristocracy,  bethought  it  more  probable  that  a  rival  ship  would 
exist  between  them,  than  that  they  would  unite  in  a  confederacy.  Mr. 
King  said  the  rights  of  Scotland  were  secure  from  all  danger,  though  in  the 
parliament  she  had  a  small  representation.  Dr.  Franklin,  (now  in  his 
eighty-second  year)  said  as  it  was  not  easy  to  see  what  the  greater  states 
could  gain  by  swallowing  up  the  smaller ;  he  did  not  apprehend  they 
would  attempt  it.  In  voting  by  states — the  mode  then  existing — it  was 
equally  in  the  power  of  the  smaller  states  to  swallow  up  the  greater.  He 
thought  the  number  of  representatives  ought  to  bear  some  proportion  to 
the  number  of  the  represented. 

On  the  2d  of  July,  the  question  was  taken  on  Mr.  Ellsworth's  motion, 
and  lost — Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  and  Mary- 
land, voting  in  the  affirmative ;  Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  and  South  Carolina,  in  the  negative ;  Georgia  divided. 
It  will  be  remembered,  that  the  delegates  from  New  Hampshire  were 
not  yet  present,  and  that  Khode  Island  had  appointed  none.  This  has 
been  regarded  by  some  as  a  fortunate  circumstance ;  as  the  votes  of 
these  two  small  states  would  probably  have  given  an  equal  vote  to  the 
states  in  both  houses,  if  not  have  defeated  the  plan  of  a  national  govern- 
ment. 

The  excitement  now  became  intense,  and  the  convention  seemed  to  be 
on  the  point  of  dissolution.  Luther  Martin,  of  Maryland,  who  had 
taken  a  leading  part  in  advocating  the  views  of  the  state  rights  party, 


64  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

*'  said  eacli  state  must  have  an  equal  vote,  or  the  business  of  the  conven- 
tion was  at  an  end.  It  having  become  apparent  that  this  unhappy  result 
could  be  avoided  only  by  a  compromise,  Mr.  Sherman,  of  Connecticut, 
moved  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  conference,  to  consist  of  one 
member  from  each  state,  and  the  motion  prevailed.  The  convention 
then  adjourned  for  three  days,  thus  giving  time  for  consultation,  and  an 
opportunity  to  celebrate  the  anniversary  of  independence. 

The  report  of  this  committee,  which  was  made  on  the  5th  of  July, 
proposed,  (1.)  That  in  the  first  branch  of  the  le^slature,  each  state 
should  have  one  representative  for  every  forty  thousand  inhabitants, 
(three-fifths  of  the  slaves  being  counted;)  that  each  state  not  containing 
that  number  should  be  allowed  one  representative ;  and  that  money  bills 
should  originate  in  this  branch.  (2.)  That  in  the  second  branch  each 
state  should  have  one  vote.  These  propositions  were  reported,  it  is  said, 
at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Franklin,  one  of  the  committee  of  conference. 

The  report,  of  course,  met  with  greater  favor  from  the  state  rights 
party,  than  from  their  opponents.  The  equal  vote  in  the  senate  continued 
to  receive  the  most  determined  opposition  from  the  national  party.  In 
relation  to  the  rule  of  representation  in  the  first  branch  of  the  legis- 
lature, also,  a  great  diversity  of  opinion  prevailed.  The  conflicting 
interests  to  be  reconciled  in  the  settlement  of  this  question,  however, 
were  those  of  the  northern  and  southern,  commercial  and  planting,  rather 
than  the  imaginary  interests  of  small  and  large  states. 

In  settling  a  rule  of  apportionment,  several  questions  were  to  be  con- 
sidered. What  should  be  the  number  of  representatives  in  the  first 
branch  of  the  legislature  ?  Ought  the  number  from  each  state  to  be 
fixed,  or  to  increase  with  the  increase  of  popp.lation  ?  Ought  population 
alone  to  be  the  basis  of  apportionment  ?  or  should  property  be  taken 
into  account?  Whatever  rule  might  be  adopted,  no  apportionment 
founded  upon  population  could  be  made  until  an  enumeration  of  the 
inhabitants  should  have  been  taken.  The  number  of  representatives 
was  therefore,  for  the  time  being,  fixed  at  sixty-five,  and  apportioned  as 
directed  by  the  constitution.     [Art.  I,  ^  2.] 

In  establishing  a  rule  of  ^  future  apportionment,  great  diversity  of 
opinion  was  expressed.  Although  slavery  then  existed  in  all  the  states 
except  Massachusetts,  the  great  mass  of  the  slave  population  was  in  the 
southern  states.  These  states  claimed  a  representation  according  to 
numbers,  bond  and  free,  while  the  northern  states  were  in  favor  of  a 
representation  according  to  the  number  of  free  persons  only.  This  rule 
was  forcibly  urged  by  several  of  the  northern  delegates.  Mr.  Patterson 
regarded  slaves  only  as  property.  They  were  not  represented  in  the 
states ;  why  should  they  be  in  the  general  government  ?     They  were  not 


FORMING   THE    CONBTITUTION.  65 

allowed  to  vote ;  why  should  they  be  represented  ?  It  was  an  encour- 
agement of  the  slave  trade.  Said  Mr.  Wilson:  "Are  they  admitted  as 
citizens  ?  then  why  not  on  an  equality  with  citizens  ?  Are  they  admitted 
as  property  ?  then  why  is  not  other  property  admitted  into  the  computa- 
tion ?"  A  large  portion  of  the  members  of  the  convention,  from  both 
sections  of  the  union,  aware  that  neither  extreme  could  be  carried, 
favored  the  proposition  to  count  the  whole  number  of  free  citizens  and 
three-fifths  of  all  others. 

Prior  to  this  discussion,  a  select  committee,  to  whom  this  subject  had 
been  referred,  had  reported  in  favor  of  a  distribution  of  the  members  on 
the  basis  of  wealth  and  numbers,  to  be  regulated  by  the  legislature. 
Before  the  question  was  taken  on  this  report,  a  proviso  was  moved  and 
agreed  to,  that  direct  taxes  should  be  in  proportion  to  representation. 
Subsequently  a  proposition  was  moved  for  reckoning  three-fifths  of  the 
slaves  in  estimating  taxes,  and  making  taxation  the  basis  of  representa- 
tion, which  was  adopted ;  New  Jersey  and  Delaware  against  it,  Massa- 
chusetts and  South  Carolina  divided ;  New  York  not  represented,  her 
three  delegates  being  all  absent.  Yates  and  Lansing,  both  of  the  state 
rights  party,  considering  their  powers  explicitly  confined  to  a  revision  of 
the  confederation,  and  bejng  chagrined  at  the  defeat  of  their  attempts  to 
secure  an  equal  vote  in  the  first  branch  of  the  legislature,  had  left  the 
convention,  not  to  return.  From  that  time,  (July  1 1th,)  New  York  had 
no  vote  in  the  convention.  Mr.  Hamilton  had  left  before  the  others,  to 
be  absent  six  weeks ;  and  though  he  returned,  and  took  part  in  the 
deliberations,  the  state,  not  having  two  delegates  present,  was  not  enti- 
tled to  a  vote.  On  the  23d,  Gilman  and  Langdon,  the  delegates  from 
New  Hampshire,  arrived,  when  eleven  states  were  again  represented. 

The  term  of  service  of  members  of  the  first  branch  was  reduced  to 
two  years,  and  of  those  of  the  second  branch,  to  six  years;  one- 
third  of  the  members  of  the  latter  to  go  out  of  office  every  two  years ; 
the  representation  in  this  body  to  consist  of  two  members  from  each 
state,  voting  individnally,  as  in  the  other  branch,  and  not  by  states,  as 
under  the  confederation.  Sundry  other  modifications  were  made  in  the 
provisions  relating  to  this  department. 

The  reported  plan  of  the  executive  department  was  next  considered. 
After  much  discussion,  and  several  attempts  to  strike  out  the  ineligibility 
of  the  executive  a  second  time,  and  to  change  the  term  of  office,  and  the 
mode  of  election,  these  provisions  were  retained. 

The  report  of  the  committee  of  the  whole,  as  amended,  was  accepted 
by  the  convention,  and,  together  with  the  New  Jersey  plan,  and  a  third 
drawn  by  Charles  Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina,  was  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  detail,  consisting  of  Messrs.  Kutledge,  Randolph,  Gorham 

5 


66  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Ellsworth,  and  Wilson,  who,  on  the  6th  of  August,  after  an  adjournment 
of  ten  days,  reported  the  constitution  in  proper  form,  having  inserted  some 
new  provisions,  and  altered  certain  others.  Our  prescribed  limits  forbid 
a  particular  account  of  the  subsequent  alterations  which  the  constitution 
received  before  it  was  finally  adopted  by  the  convention.  There  is  one 
provision,  however,  which,  as  it  forms  one  of  the  great  "compromises  of 
the  constitution,"  deserves  notice. 

To  render  the  constitution  acceptable  to  the  southern  states  which 
were  the  principal  exporting  states,  the  committee  of  detail  had  inserted 
a  clause,  providing,  that  no  duties  should  be  laid  on  exports,  or  on  slaves 
imported ;  and  another,  that  no  navigation  act  might  to  be  passed,  except 
by  a  two-thirds  vote.  By  depriving  congress  of  the  power  of  giving 
any  preference  to  American  over  foreign  shipping,  it  was  designed  to 
secure  cheap  transportation  to  southern  exports.  As  the  shipping  was 
principally  owned  in  the  eastern  states,  their  delegates  were  equally 
anxious  to  prevent  any  restriction  of  the  power  of  congress  to  pass  navi- 
gation laws.  All  the  states,  except  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and 
Georgia,  had  prohibited  the  importation  of  slaves  ;  and  North  Carolina 
had  proceeded  so  far  as  to  discourage  the  importation  by  heavy  duties. 
The  prohibition  of  duties  on  the  importation  of  slaves  was  demanded  by 
the  delegates  from  South  Carolina  and  Greorgia,  who  declared  that,  with- 
out a  provision  of  this  kind,  the  constitution  would  not  •receive  the  assent 
of  these  states.  The  support  which  the  proposed  restriction  received 
from  other  states,  was  given  to  it  from  a  disposition  to  compromise, 
rather  than  from  an  approval  of  the  measure  itself.  The  proposition 
not  only  gave  rise  to  a  discussion  of  its  own  merits,  but  revived  the 
opposition  to  the  apportionment  of  representatives  according  to  the  three- 
fifths  ratio,  and  called  forth  some  severe  denunciations  of  slavery. 

Mr.  King,  in  reference  to  the  admission  of  slaves  as  a  part  of  the 
representative  population,  remarked :  "  lie  had  not  made  a  strenuous  op- 
position to  it  heretofore,  because  he  had  hoped  that  this  concession  would 
have  produced  a  readiness,  which  had  not  been  manifested,  to  strengthen 
the  general  government.  The  report  of  the  committee  put  an  end  to  all 
those  hopes.  The  importation  of  slaves  could  not  be  prohibited ;  ex- 
ports could  not  be  taxed.  If  slaves  are  to  be  imported,  shall  not  the  ex- 
ports produced  by  their  labor  supply  a  revenue  to  help  the  government 
defend  their  masters  ?  There  was  so  much  inequality  and  unreasonable- 
ness in  all  this,  that  the  people  of  the  northern  states  could  never  be 
reconciled  to  it.  He  had  hoped  that  some  accommodation  would  have 
taken  place  on  the  subject ;  that  at  least  a  time  would  have  been  limited 
for  the  importation  of  slaves.  He  could  never  agree  to  let  them  be  im- 
ported without  limitation,  and  then  be  represented  in  the  national  legis- 


FORMING    THE    CONSTITUTION.  67 

lature.  Either  slaves  should  not  be  represented,  or  exports  should  be 
taxable." 

G  ouverneur  Morris  pronounced  slavery  "  a  nefarious  institution.  It 
■was  the  curse  of  Heaven  on  the  states  where  it  prevailed.  Compare  the 
free  regions  of  the  middle  states,  where  a  rich  and  noble  cultivation 
marks  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  people,  with  the  misery  and 
poverty  which  overspread  the  barren  wastes  of  Virginia,  Maryland,  and 
the  other  states  having  slaves.  Travel  through  the  whole  continent,  and 
you  behold  the  prospect  continually  varying  with  the  appearance  and  dis- 
appearance of  slavery.  *  *  *  The  admission  of  slaves  into  the  repre- 
sentation, when  fairly  explained,  comes  to  this,  that  the  inhabitant  of 
Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  who  goes  to  the  coast  of  Africa  in  defiance 
of  the  most  sacred  laws  of  humanity,  tears  away  his  fellow-creatures 
from  their  dearest  connections,  and  damns  them  to  the  most  cruel  bond- 
age, shall  have  more  votes  in  a  government  instituted  for  the  protection 
of  the  rights  of  mankind,  than  the  citizen  of  Pennsylvania  and  New 
Jersey,  who  views  with  a  laudable  horror  so  nefarious  a  practice.  *  *  * 
And  what  is  the  proposed  compensation  to  the  northern  states  for  a 
sacrifice  of  every  principle  of  right,  every  impulse  of  humanity  ?  They 
are  to  bind  themselves  to  march  their  militia  for  the  defense  of  the 
southern  states,  against  those  very  slaves  of  whom  they  complain.  The 
legislature  will  have  indefinite  power  to  tax  them  by  excises  and  duties 
on  imports,  both  of  which  will  fall  heavier  on  them  than  on  the  southern 
inhabitants ;  for  the  Bohea  tea  used  by  a  northern  freeman,  will  pay 
more  tax  than  the  whole  consumption  of  the  miserable  slave,  which  con- 
sists of  nothing  more  than  his  physical  subsistence  and  the  rag  which 
covers  his  nakedness.  On  the  other  side,  the  southern  states  are  not  to 
be  restrained  from  importing  fresh  supplies  of  wretched  Africans,  at 
once  to  increase  the  danger  of  attack  and  the  difl&culty  of  defense ; 
nay,  they  are  to  be  encouraged  to  it  by  an  assurance  of  having  their 
votes  in  the  national  government  increased  in  proportion,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  are  to  have  their  slaves  and  their  exports  exempt  from  all 
contributions  to  the  public  service."  Mr.  Morris  moved  to  make  the 
fre^  population  alone  the  basis  of  representation. 

Mr.  Sherman,  who  had  on  other  occasions  manifested  a  disposition  to 
compromise,  again  favored  the  southern  side.  He  "  did  not  regard  the 
admission  of  the  negroes  as  liable  to  such  insuperable  objections.  It  was 
the  freemen  of  the  southern  states  who  were  to  be  represented  according 
to  the  taxes  paid  by  them,  and  the  negroes  are  only  included  in  the  esti- 
mate of  the  taxes." 

After  some  farther  discussion,  the  question  was  taken  upon  Mr. 
Morris'  motion,  and  lost.  New  Jersey  only  voting  for  it. 


68  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

With  respect  to  prohibiting  any  restriction  upon  the  importation  of 
slaves,  Mr.  Martin,  of  Maryland,  who  moved  to  allow  a  tax  upon  slaves 
imported,  remarked  :  "  As  five  slaves  in  the  apportionment  of  representa- 
tives were  reckoned  as  equal  to  three  freemen,  such  a  permission  amounted 
to  an  encouragemement  of  the  slave  trade.  Slaves  weakened  the  union 
which  the  other  parts  were  bound  to  protect;  the  privilege  of  importing 
them  was  therefore  unreasonable.  Such  a  feature  in  the  constitution  was 
inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  the  revolution,  and  dishonorable  to  the 
American  character." 

Mr.  Rutledge  "  did  not  see  how  this  section  would  encourage  the  im- 
portation of  slaves.  He  was  not  apprehensive  of  insurrections,  and 
would  readily  exempt  the  other  states  from  every  obligation  to  protect 
the  south.  Religion  and  humanity  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  question. 
Interest  alone  is  the  governing  principle  with  nations.  The  true  question 
at  present  is,  whether  the  southern  states  shall  or  shall  not  be  parties  to 
the  union.  If  the  northern  states  consult  their  interest,  they  will  not 
oppose  the  increase  of  slaves,  which  will  increase  the  commodities  of 
which  they  will  become  the  carriers." 

Mr.  Ellsworth  said  :  "  Let  every  state  import  what  it  pleases.  The 
morality  or  wisdom  of  slavery  is  a  consideration  belonging  to  the  states. 
What  enriches  a  part  enriches  the  whole,  and  the  states  are  the  best 
judges  of  their  particular  interests." 

Mr.  C.  Pinckney  said  :  "  South  Carolina  can  never  receive  the  plan  if 
it  prohibits  the  slave  trade.  If  the  states  be  left  at  liberty  on  this  sub- 
ject, South  Carolina  may  perhaps,  by  degrees,  do  of  herself  what  is 
wished,  as  Maryland  and  Virginia  already  have  done." 

Mr.  Sherman  concurred  with  his  colleague,  (Mr.  Ellsworth.)  "  He 
disapproved  the  slave  trade  ;  but  as  the  states  now  possessed  the  right, 
and  the  public  good  did  not  require  it  to  be  taken  away ;  and  as  it  was 
expedient  to  have  as  few  objections  as  possible  to  the  proposed  scheme 
of  government,  he  would  leave  the  matter  as  he  found  it.  The  abolition 
of  slavery  seemed  to  be  going  on  in  the  United  States,  and  the  good  sense 
of  the  several  states  would  probably,  by  degrees,  soon  complete  it." 

Mr.  Mason  said:  "  Slavery  discourages  arts  and  manufactures.  The 
poor  despise  labor  when  performed  by  slaves.  They  prevent  the  immi- 
gration of  whites,  who  really  enrich  and  strengthen  a  country.  They 
produce  a  pernicious  effect  on  manners.  Every  master  of  slaves  is  born 
a  petty  tyrant.  They  bring  the  judgment  of  Heaven  on  a  country.  He 
lamented  that  some  of  our  eastern  brethren,  from  a  lust  of  gain,  had  em- 
barked in  this  nefarious  traffic.  As  to  the  states  being  in  possession  of 
the  right  to  import,  that  was  the  case  of  many  other  rights  now  to  be 
given  up.  He  held  it  essential,  in  every  point  of  view,  that  the  general 
government  should  have  power  to  prevent  the  increase  of  slavery." 


FORMING    THE    CONSTITUTION.  69 

Mr.  Ellsworth,  not  well  pleased  witli  this  thrust  at  his  slave- trading 
friends  at  the  north,  by  a  slave  holder,  tartly  replied  :  "  As  I  have  never 
owned  a  slave,  I  can  not  judge  of  the  effects  of  slavery  on  character ; 
but  if  slavery  is  to  be  considered  in  a  moral  light,  the  convention  ought 
to  go  further,  and  free  those  already  in  the  country."  The  opposition 
of  Virginia  and  Maryland  to  the  importation  of  slaves  he  attributed  to 
the  fact,  that,  on  account  of  their  rapid  increase  in  those  states,  "  it  was 
cheaper  to  raise  them  there  than  to  import  them,  while  in  the  sickly  rice 
swamps  foreign  supplies  were  necessary.  If  we  stop  short  with  prohibit- 
ing their  importation,  we  shall  be  unjust  to  South  Carolina  and  G-eorgia. 
Let  us  not  intermeddle.  As  population  increases,  poor  laborers  will  be 
so  plenty  as  to  render  slaves  useless.  Slavery,  in  time,  will  not  be  a 
speck  in 'our  country." 

Delegates  from  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  repeated  the  declaration, 
that,  if  the  slave  trade  were  prohibited,  these  states  would  not  adopt  the 
constitution.  Virginia,  it  was  said,  would  gain  by  stopping  the  impor- 
tation, she  having  slaves  to  sell ;  but  it  would  be  unjust  to  South  Caro- 
lina and  Georgia,  to  be  deprived  of  the  right  of  importing.  Besides, 
the  importation  of  slaves  would  be  a  benefit  to  the  whole  union.  The 
more  slaves,  the  more  produce,  the  greater  carrying  trade,  the  more  con- 
sumption, the  more  revenue." 

The  injustice  of  exempting  slaves  from  duty,  while  every  other  import 
was  subject  to  it,  having  been  urged  by  several  members  in  the  course  of 
the  debate,  C.  Pinckney  expressed  his  consent  to  a  tax  not  exceeding  the 
same  on  other  imports,  and  moved  to  refer  the  subject  to  a  committee. 
The  motion  was  seconded  by  Mr.  Rutledge,  and  at  the  suggestion  of  G. 
Morris,  was  so  modified  as  to  include  the  clauses  relating  to  navigation 
laws  and  taxes  on  exports.  The  commitment  was  opposed  by  Messrs. 
Sherman  and  Ellsworth ;  the  former  on  the  ground  that  taxes  on  slaves 
imported  implied  that  they  were  property ;  the  latter  from  the  fear  of 
losing  two  states.  Mr.  Kandolph  was  in  favor  of  the  motion,  hoping  to 
find  some  middle  ground  upon  which  they  could  unite.  The  motion  pre- 
vailed, and  the  subject  was  referred  to  a  committee  of  one  from  each 
state.  The  committee  retained  the  prohibition  of  duties  on  exports; 
struck  out  the  restriction  on  the  enactment  of  navigation  laws ;  and  left 
the  importation  of  slaves  unrestricted,  until  the  year  1 800  ;  permitting 
congress,  however,  to  impose  a  duty  upon  the  importation. 

The  debate  upon  this  report  of  the  grand  committee,  is  condensed,  by 
Hildreth,  into  the  two  following  paragraphs : 

"  AVilliamson  declared  himself,  both  in  opinion  and  practice,  against 
slavery ;  but  he  thought  it  more  in  favor  of  humanity,  from  a  view  of 
all  circumstances,  to  let  in  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  on  these  terms, 


70  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

than  to  exclude  them  from  the  union.  Sherman  again  objected  to  the 
tax,  as  acknowledging  men  to  be  property.  G-orham  replied,  that  the 
duty  ought  to  l)e  considered,  not  as  implying  that  men  are  property,  but 
as  a  discouragement  to  their  importation.  Sherman  said  the  duty  was 
too  small  to  bear  that  character.  Madison  thought  it  "  wrong  to  admit, 
in  the  constitution,  the  idea  that  there  could  be  property  in  man ;"  and 
the  phraseology  of  one  clause  was  subsequently  altered  to  avoid  any  such 
implication.  Gr.  Morris  objected  that  the  clause  gave  congress  power  to 
tax  freemen  imported ;  to  which  Mason  replied,  that  such  a  power  was 
necessary  to  prevent  the  importation  of  convicts.  A  motion  to  extend 
the  time  from  1800  to  1808,  made  by  C.  C.  Pinkney,  and  seconded  by 
Gorham,  was  carried  against  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and 
Virginia;  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  New  Hampshire  voting  this 
time  with  Georgia  and  South  Carolina.  That  part  of  the  report  which 
struck  out  the  restriction  on  the  enactment  of  navigation  acts,  was  opposed 
by  Charles  Pinckney  in  a  set  speech,  in  which  he  enumerated  five  distinct 
commercial  interests  ;  the  fisheries  and  West  India  trade,  belonging  to 
New  England ;  the  interest  of  New  York  in  a  free  trade ;  wheat  and 
flour,  the  staples  of  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania;  tobacco,  the  staple  of 
Maryland  and  Virginia,  and  partly  of  North  Carolina ;  rice  and  indigo, 
the  staples  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia.  The  same  ground  was  taken 
by  Williamson  and  Mason,  and  very  warmly  by  Randolph,  who  declared 
that  an  unlimited  power  in  congress  to  enact  navigation  laws,  '  would 
complete  the  deformity  of  a  system  having  already  so  many  odious  fea- 
tures, that  he  hardly  knew  if  he  could  agree  to  it.'  Any  restriction  of 
the  power  of  congress  over  commerce  was  warmly  opposed  by  Gouverneur 
Morris,  Wilson  and  Gorham.  Madison  also  took  the  same  side.  C.  C. 
Pinckney  did  not  deny  that  it  was  the  true  interest  of  the  south  to  have 
no  regulation  of  commerce ;  but  considering  the  commercial  losses  of  the 
eastern  states  during  the  revolution,  their  liberal  conduct  toward  the 
views  of  South  Carolina,  (in  the  vote  just  taken,  giving  eight  years'  fur- 
ther extension  to  the  slave  trade,)  and  the  interest  of  the  weak  southern 
states  in  being  united  with  the  strong  eastern  ones,  he  should  go  against 
any  restriction  on  the  power  of  commercial  regulation.  '  He  had  him- 
self prejudices  against  the  eastern  states  before  he  came  here,  but  would 
acknowledge  that  he  found  them  as  liberal  and  candid  as  any  men  what- 
ever.' Butler  and  Rutledge  took  the  same  ground,  and  the  same  report 
was  adopted,  against  the  votes  of  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina, 
and  Georgia. 

"  Thus,  by  an  understanding,  or,  as  Gouverneur  Morris  called  it,  '  a 
bargain,'  between  the  commercial  representatives  of  the  northern  states, 
and  the  delegates  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  and  in  spite  of  the 


FORMING   THE    CONSTITUTION.  71 

opposition  of  Maryland  and  Virginia,  the  unrestricted  power  of  congress 
to  pass  navigation  laws  was  conceded  to  the  northern  merchants,  and  to 
the  Carolina  rice  planters,  as  an  equivalent,  twenty  years'  continuance 
of  the  African  slave-trade.  This  was  the  third  great  compromise  of  the 
constitution.  The  other  two  were  the  concessions  to  the  smaller  states 
of  an  equal  representation  in  the  senate,  and,  to  the  slaveholders,  the 
counting  of  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  in  determining  the  ratio  of  repre- 
sentation. If  this  third  compromise  differed  from  the  other  two  by  in- 
volving not  only  a  political,  but  a  moral  sacrifice,  there  was  this  partial 
compensation  about  it,  that  it  was  not  permanent,  like  the  others,  but 
expired  at  the  end  of  twenty  years  by  its  own  limitation." 

Of  the  important  subjects  remaining  to  be  disposed  of,  that  of  the  exe- 
cutive department  was,  perhaps,  the  most  difficult.  The  modified  plan 
of  Mr.  Randolph  left  the  executive  to  be  elected  by  the  legislature  for 
a  single  term  of  seven  years.  The  election  was  subsequently  given  to  a 
college  of  electors,  to  be  chosen  in  the  states  in  such  manner  as  the  legis- 
latures of  the  states  should  direct.  The  term  of  service  was  reduced 
from  seven  to  four  years ;  and  the  restriction  of  the  office  to  a  single 
term  was  removed.  Numerous  other  amendments  and  additions  were 
made  in  going  through  with  the  draft.  This  amended  draft  was  referred, 
for  final  revision,  to  a  committee  consisting  of  Messrs.  Hamilton,  John- 
son, G.  Morris,  Madison,  and  King.  Several  amendments  were  made 
even  after  this  revision ;  •  one  of  which  was  the  substitution  of  a  two- 
thirds  for  the  three-fourths  majority  required  to  pass  bills  against  the 
veto  of  the  president.  Another  was  a  proposition  of  Mr.  Grorham,  to 
reduce  the  minimum  ratio  of  representation  from  40,000,  as  it  stood,  to 
30,000,  intended  to  conciliate  certain  members  who  thought  the  house  too 
small.  This  was  offered  the  day  on  which  the  constitution  was  signed. 
Gen.  Washington  having  briefly  addressed  the  convention  in  favor  of  the 
proposed  amendment,  it  was  carried  almost  unanimously. 

The  whole  number  of  delegates  who  attended  the  convention,  was 
fifty-five,  of  whom  thirty-nine  signed  the  constitution.  Of  the  remaining 
sixteen,  some  had  left  the  convention  before  its  close ;  others  refused  to 
give  it  their  sanction.  Several  of  the  absentees  were  known  to  be  in 
favor  of  the  constitution. 

Some,  as  has  been  observed,  were  opposed  to  the  plan  of  a  national 
government,  contending  for  the  preservation  of  the  confederation,  with  a 
mere  enlargement  of  its  powers ;  others,  though  in  favor  of  the  plan 
adopted,  believed  too  much  power  had  been  given  to  the  general  govern- 
ment. Some  thought  that  not  only  the  powers  of  congress,  but  those 
of  the  executive,  were  too  extensive ;  others,  that  the  executive  was 
"  weak  and  contemptible,"   and  without  sufficient  power  to  defend  him- 


72  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

self  against  encroacliments,  by  the  legislature  :  others  still,  that  the 
executive  power  of  the  nation  ought  not  to  be  intrusted  in  a  single  person. 
Although  some  deprecated  the  extensive  powers  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment as  dangerous  to  the  rights  of  the  states,  "  ultra  democracy"  seems 
to  have  had  no  representatives  in  the  convention ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  there  were  not  a  few  who  thought  it  unsafe  to  trust  the  people 
with  a  direct  exercise  of  power  in  the  general  government.  Sherman 
and  Gerry  were  opposed  to  the  election  of  the  first  branch  of  the  legis- 
lature by  the  people  ;  as  were  some  of  the  southern  delegates.  Others, 
among  whom  were  Madison,  Mason,  and  Wilson,  thought  no  republican 
government  could  be  permanent  in  which  the  people  were  denied  a  direct 
voice  in  the  election  of  their  representatives.  Hamilton,  though  in  favor 
of  making  the  first  branch  elective,  proposed  that  the  senate  should  be 
chosen  by  electors  chosen  by  the  people,  and  the  executive  by  electors 
clwsen  hy  electors,  who  were  to  be  chosen  by  the  people  in  districts  ;  sen- 
ators and  the  president  both  to  hold  their  offices  during  good  behavior.  He 
was  also,  as  were  a  few  others,  in  favor  of  an  absolute  executive  veto  on 
acts  of  the  legislature.  He,  however,  signed  the  constitution,  and  urged 
others  to  do  the  same,  as  the  only  means  of  preventing  anarchy  and 
confusion.  While  the  proposed  constitution  was  in  every  particular 
satisfactory  to  none,  very  few  were  disposed  to  jeopard  the  union  by  the 
continuance  of  a  system  which  all  admitted  to  be  inadequate  to  the 
objects  of  the  union.  To  the  hope,  therefore,  of  finding  the  new  plan  an 
improvement  on  the  old,  and  of  amending  its  defects  if  any  should  appear, 
is  to  be  attributed  the  general  sanction  which  it  received. 

It  is  indeed  remarkable,  that  a  plan  of  government,  containing  so  many 
provisions  to  which  the  most  strenuous  opposition  was  maintained  to  the 
end,  should  have  received  the  signatures  of  so  large  a  majority  of  the 
convention.  Perhaps  there  never  was  another  political  body,  in  which 
views  and  interests  more  varied  and  opposite  have  been  represented,  or 
a  greater  diversity  of  opinion  has  prevailed. 

Nor  is  it  less  remarkable,  that  a  system  deemed  so  imperfect,  not  only 
by  the  mass  of  its  framers,  but  by  a  large  portion  of  the  eminent  men 
who  composed  the  state  conventions  that  ratified  it,  should  have  been 
found  to  answer  so  fully  the  purpose  of  its  formation,  as  to  require,  dur- 
ing an  experiment  of  more  than  sixty  years,  no  essential  alteration  ;  and 
that  it  should  be  esteemed  as  a  model  form  of  republican  government  by 
the  enlightened  friends  of  freedom  in  all  countries.  Not  a  single  provi- 
sion of  the  constitution,  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of' the  framers,  except 
that  which  prescribed  the  mode  of  electing  a  president  and  vice-president, 
has  received  the  slightest  amendment.  Of  the  twelve  articles  styled 
amendments,  the  first  eleven  are  merely  additions ;  some  of  which  were 


RATIFICATION   OF   THE    CONSTITUTION  73 

intended  to  satisfy  tlie  scruples  of  those  who  objected  to  the  constitution 
as  incomplete  without  a  bill  of  rights,  supposing  their  common  law  rights 
would  be  rendered  more  secure  by  an  express  guaranty ;  others  are  ex- 
planatory of  certain  provisions  of  the  constitution  which  were  considered 
liable  to  misconstruction.  The  twelfth  article  is  the  amendment  changing 
the  mode  of  electing  the  president  and  vice-president. 

In  the  differences  of  opinion  between  the  friends  and  opponents  of  the 
constitution,  originated  the  two  great  political  parties  into  which  the 
people  were  divided  during  a  period  of  about  thirty  years.  It  is  gener- 
ally supposed  that  the  term  "  Federalist"  was  first  applied  to  those  who 
advocated  the  plan  of  the  present  constitution.  This  opinion,  however, 
is  not  correct.  Those  members  of  the  convention  who  were  in  favor  of 
the  old  plan  of  union,  which  was  a  simple  confederation  or  federal 
alliance  of  equal  independent  states,  were  called  federalists,  and  their 
opponents  anti-federalists.  After  the  new  constitution  had  been  submit- 
ted to  the  people  for  ratification,  its  friends,  regarding  its  adoption 
indispensable  to  union,  took  the  name  of  federalists,  and  bestowed 
upon  the  other  party  that  of  anti-federalists,  intimating  that  to  oppose 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution  was  to  oppose  any  union  of  the  states. 

The  new  constitution  bears  date  the  17th  of  September,  1787.  It 
was  immediately  transmitted  to  congress,  with  a  recommendation  to  that 
body  to  submit  it  to  state  conventions  for  ratification,  which  was  accord- 
ingly done.  It  was  adopted  by  Delaware,  December  7  ;  by  Pennsylvania, 
December  12;  by  New  Jersey,  December  18;  by  Georgia,  January  2, 
1788  ;  by  Connecticut,  January  9  ;  by  Massachusetts,  February  7  ;  by 
Maryland,  April  28 ;  by  South  Carolina,  May  23 ;  by  New  Hampshire, 
June  21  ;  which,  being  the  ninth  ratifying  state,  gave  effect  to  the  con- 
stitution. Virginia  ratified  June  27 ;  New  York,  July  26 ;  and  North 
Carolina,  conditionally,  August  7.  Rhode  Island  did  not  call  a  con- 
vention. 

In  Massachusetts,  Virginia,  and  New  York,  the  new  constitution 
encountered  a  most  formidable  opposition,  which  rendered  its  adoption 
by  these  states  for  a  time  extremely  doubtful.  In  their  conventions 
were  men  on  both  sides  who  had  been  members  of  the  national  conven- 
tion, associated  with  others  of  distinguished  abilities.  In  Massachusetts 
there  were  several  adverse  influences  which  would  probably  have  defeated 
the  ratification  in  that  state,  had  it  not  been  accompanied  by  certain  pro- 
posed amendments  to  be  submitted  by  congress  to  the  several  states  for 
ratification.  The  adoption  of  these  by  the  convention  gained  for  the 
constitution  the  support  of  Hancock  and  Samuel  Adams ;  and  the 
question  on  ratification  was  carried  by  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven 
against  c  ne  hundred  and  sixty-eight. 


74  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

In  the  Virginia  convention,  tlie  constitution  was  opposed  by  Patrick 
Henry,  James  Monroe,  and  George  Mason,  the  last  of  whom  had  been 
one  of  the  convention  of  framers.  On  the  other  side  were  John  Mar- 
shall, Mr.  Pendleton,  Mr.  Madison,  George  Wythe,  and  Edmund  Ran- 
dolph, the  three  last  also  having  been  members  of  the  national  conven- 
tion. Mr.  Randolph  had  refused  to  sign  the  constitution,  but  had 
become  one  of  its  warmest  advocates.  In  the  convention  of  this  state 
also,  the  ratification  was  aided  by  the  adoption  of  a  bill  of  rights  and 
certain  proposed  amendments ;  and  was  carried,  eighty-eight  yeas  against 
eighty  nays. 

In  the  convention  of  New  York,  the  opposition  embraced  a  majority 
of  its  members,  among  whom  were  Yates  and  Lansing,  members  of  the 
general  convention,  and  George  Clinton.  The  principal  advocates  of  the 
constitution  were  John  Jay,  Robert  R.  Livingston,  and  Mr.  Hamilton. 
Strong  efforts  were  made  for  a  conditional  ratification,  which  were  suc- 
cessfully opposed,  though  not  without  the  previous  adoption  of  a  bill  of 
rights,  and  numerous  amendments.  With  these,  the  absolute  ratification 
was  carried,  thirty-one  to  twenty-nine. 

The  ratification  of  North  Carolina  was  not  received  by  Congress,  until 
January,  1790 ;  and  that  of  Rhode  Island,  not  until  June  of  the  same 
year. 

After  the  ratification  of  New  Hampshire  had  been  received  by  con- 
gress, the  ratifications  of  the  nine  states  were  referred  to  a  committee, 
who,  on  the  14th  of  July,  1788,  reported  a  resolution  for  carrying  the 
new  government  into  operation.  The  passage  of  the  resolution,  owing  to 
the  difficulty  of  agreeing  upon  the  place  for  the  meeting  of  the  first  con- 
gress, was  delayed  until  the  13th  of  September.  The  first  Wednesday 
of  January,  1789,  was  appointed  for  choosing  electors  of  president,  and 
the  first  Wednesday  of  February  for  the  electors  to  meet  in  their  respec- 
tive states  to  vote  for  president  and  vice-president ;  and  the  first  Wednes- 
day, the  14th  of  March,  as  the  time,  and  New  York  as  the  place,  to 
commence  proceedings  under  the  new  constitution. 


CHAPTER   Y. 

MEETING    OP    THE    FIRST    CONGRESS. A    SYSTEM   OF     FINANCE    ADOPTED. 

THE   FUNDING   OF    THE    PUBLIC    DEBT. THE    SEAT    OF    GOVERNMENT. 

Pursuant  to  appointment,  congress  assembled  at  New  York  on  the 
4th  of  March,  1789;  but  a  quorum  of  the  house  of  representatives  was 
not  present  until  the  1st  of  April,  nor  of  the  senate  until  the  6th.  On 
counting  the  electoral  votes,  it  appeared  that  George  "Washington  was 
unanimously  elected  president,  and  that  John  Adams  was,  by  the  next 
highest  number  of  votes,  elected  vice-president.  On  the  30th  of  April, 
the  oath  of  office  was  administered  to  the  president ;  and  soon  after,  he 
delivered  his  inaugural  address  to  the  senate  and  house  of  representatives. 

Many  important  subjects  demanded  the  immediate  attention  of  con- 
gress. The  depressed  state  of  commerce,  caused  by  the  restrictive 
policy  of  foreign  nations,  which  there  was  no  power  in  the  old  system  to 
counteract,  and  the  want  of  revenue  adequate  to  the  public  necessities, 
were  the  chief  causes  that  led  to  the  recent  change  in  the  government. 
These,  therefore,  were  the  first  objects  to  receive  the  attention  of  con- 
gress. 

Immediately  after  the  organization  of  the  house,  Mr.  Madison  moved 
a  resolution,  declaring  the  opinion,  that  certain  duties  ought  to  be  levied 
on  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  imported  into  the  United  States,  and 
on  the  tonnage  of  vessels.  A  law  was  accordingly  passed,  with  a  pream- 
ble declaring  it  to  be  "  necessary  for  the  support  of  government,  for  the 
discharge  of  the  debts  of  the  United  States,  and  the  encouragement  of 
manufactures,  that  duties  be  laid  on  goods,  wares,  and  merchandises 
imported."  This  law  imposed  specific  duties  on  a  long  list  of  enumerated 
articles,  and  an  ad  valorem  duty  upon  others.  The  duties  on  goods  im- 
ported in  American  vessels  were  ten  per  cent,  less  than  if  brought  in 
foreign  vessels.  An  act  was  also  passed,  laying  discriminating  duties  on 
tonnage ;  American  vessels  being  charged  with  a  duty  of  six  cents  a  ton; 
foreign  vessels,  fifty  cents  a  ton. 

The  discrimination  in  favor  of  American  shipping  was  opposed  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  insufficient  to  transport  all  the  produce  of  the  country, 
and  the  extra  tonnage  duty  upon  foreign  vessels  would  enhance  the  cost 
of  transportation,  and  thus  operate  as  a  tax  upon  agriculture,  and  a  pre- 
mium to  navigation. 


76  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

In  reply  to  this  argument,  Mr.  Madison  said,  if  it  was  expedient  for 
America  to  have  vessels  employed  in  commerce  at  all,  it  would  be 
proper  that  she  should  have  enough  to  answer  all  the  purposes  intended ; 
to  form  a  school  for  seamen ;  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  navy ;  and  to  be 
able  to  support  herself  against  the  interference  of  foreigners.  Grranting 
a  preference  to  our  own  navigation  would  insensibly  bring  it  forward  to 
that  perfection  so  essential  to  American  safety ;  and  though  it  might 
produce  some  little  inequality  at  first,  it  would  soon  ascertain  its  level, 
and  become  uniform  throughout  the  union. 

A  proposition  also  was  adopted  by  the  house  of  representatives,  making 
a  difi'erence  in  favor  of  nations  which  had  formed  commercial  treaties 
with  the  United  States ;  but  the  senate  did  not  assent  to  the  discrimina- 
tion. North  Carolina  and  Rhode  Island,  not  having  acceded  to  the 
union,  were  in  the  situation  of  foreign  states.  By  special  enactments, 
however,  goods  of  the  growth  or  manufacture  of  these  states  were  exempt- 
ed from  foreign  duties ;  and  their  vessels  were  to  be  entitled  to  the  same 
privileges  as  those  of  the  United  States,  until  the  15th  of  January,  1790. 

Three  auxiliary  executive  departments  were  established  at  this  session : 
the  department  of  foreign  affairs — since  called  department  of  state — the 
department  of  the  treasury,  and  the  department  of  war.  These,  or 
similar  departments,  had  for  some  time  existed ;  but  they  were  now 
reorganized,  and  adapted  to  the  new  government. 

In  organizing  these  departments,  the  question  arose,  whether  the 
of&cers  of  these  departments  could  be  removed  by  the  president  alone, 
or  whether  the  concurrence  of  the  senate  was  necessary,  as  in  their 
appointment.  In  the  Federalist,  (No.  Ixxvii,)  Mr.  Hamilton  says:  "It 
has  been  mentioned  as  one  of  the  advantages  to  be  expected  from  the 
cooperation  of  the  senate,  in  the  business  of  appointments,  that  it  would 
contribute  to  the  stability  of  the  administration.  The  consent  of  that 
body  would  be  necessary  to  displace  as  well  as  to  appoint.  A  change 
of  the  chief  magistrate,  therefore,  would  not  occasion  so  vehement  or 
general  a  revolution  in  the  officers  of  the  government,  as  might  be 
expected  if  he  were  the  sole  disposer  of  offices.  When  a  man,  in  any 
situation,  had  given  satisfactory  evidence  of  his  fitness  for  it,  a  new 
president  would  be  restrained  from  attempting  a  change  in  favor  of  a 
person  more  agreeable  to  him,  by  the  apprehension  that  the  discoun- 
tenance of  the  senate  might  frustrate  the  attempt,  and  bring  discredit 
upon  himself." 

This  construction  was  supported  by  Mr.  Sherman  and  Mr.  Gerry,  both 
of  whom  had  been  members  of  the  general  convention,  and  others.  It 
was  argued,  that,  as  the  president  and  senate  were  associated  in  making 
appointments,  the  fair  inference  was,  that  they  must  agree  in  removals. 


MEETING   OF    THE   FIRST    CONGRESS.  77 

This  power,  in  the  hands  of  the  prf  sident  alone,  was  dangerous  to  liberty. 
It  was  in  its  nature  monarchical,  and  would  convert  executive  officers 
into  mere  instruments  of  his  will. 

Among  those  who  maintained  the  opposite  side,  were  Mr.  Madison 
and  Mr.  Baldwin,  also  members  of  the  convention.  The  executive  power 
was,  by  the  constitution,  vested  in  the  president ;  and  the  power  of 
removal  was  in  its  nature  completely  executive.  The  president  was 
required  to  see  the  laws  faithfully  executed ;  and  how  could  he  be  an- 
swerable for  a  faithful  execution  of  the  laws,  without  the  power  of 
removing  an  officer  whose  cooperation  was  necessary  to  their  execution. 
Besides,  an  immediate  removal  might  become  necessary;  and  the  public 
interest  might  suffer  by  the  delay  in  convening  the  senate.  After 
several  days'  discussion,  the  question  was  decided,  34  to  20,  in  favor  of 
conferring  on  the  president  alone  the  power  of  removal. 

In  filling  the  offices  of  these  departments,  Mr.  Jefferson  was  appointed 
secretary  of  foreign  affairs ;  Mr.  Hamilton,  secretary  of  the  treasury ; 
Gen.  Knox,  of  Massachusetts,  was  continued  as  secretary  of  war ;  and 
Edmund  Eandolph  was  appointed  attorney-general. 

The  judiciary  department,  also,  was  established  at  this  session.  John 
Jay,  of  New  York,  was  appointed  chief  justice ;  John  Butledge,  of 
South  Carolina,  James  Wilson,  of  Pennsylvania,  William  Cushing,  of 
Massachusetts,  Robert  Harrison,  of  Maryland,  and  John  Blair,  of  Vir- 
ginia, associate  justices. 

At  this  session,  the  states  of  Virginia  and  New  York  petitioned  con- 
gress to  call  a  convention  to  amend  the  constitution.  Congress  having 
no  authority  to  call  a  convention,  a  proposition  was  made  by  Mr.  Madi- 
son for  recommending  to  the  states  the  adoption  of  certain  additional 
articles  to  the  constitution.  Twelve  articles  were  agreed  to  by  the  con- 
stitutional majority  of  two- thirds  of  both  houses,  and  proposed  to  the 
states.  Ten  of  these  articles,  being  the  first  ten  subjoined  to  the  con- 
stitution, were  adopted  by  the  states. 

Congress  adjourned  on  the  29th  of  September,  to  meet  on  the  first 
Monday  of  January,  1790.  Before  the  adjournment,  by  a  resolution  of 
both  houses,  the  president  was  requested  to  recommend  a  day  of  public 
thanksgiving  and  prayer,  to  be  observed,  "  by  acknowledging  with  grate- 
ful hearts,  the  many  and  signal  favors  of  Almighty  God,  especially  by 
affording  them  an  opportunity  peaceably  to  establish  a  constitution  of 
government,  for  their  safety  and  happiness." 

Among  the  objects  recommended  by  the  president  to  the  attention  of 
congress  at  its  next  session,  were  those  of  "  providing  for  the  common 
defense  ;"  of  "  promoting  such  manufactures  as  tend  to  render  the  people 
independent  on  others  for  essential,  particularly  for  military,  supplies ;" 


73  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  "  the  promotion  of  science  and  literature;"  and  of  making  "  adequate 
provision  for  the  support  of  the  public  credit." 

The  great  measure  of  the  session  was  the  act  carrying  into  effect  the 
last  mentioned  of  these  objects.  The  house  had  at  the  preceding  session, 
directed  the  "  secretary  of  the  treasury  to  prepare  a  plan  for  that  pur- 
pose, and  to  report  the  same  to  the  house  at  its  next  meeting.  The 
plan  of  the  secretary  was  accordingly  reported  on  the  1 4th  of  January. 
The  foreign  debt,  due  principally  to  France  and  individual  lenders  in 
Holland,  was  $11,710,378,  of  which  about  a  million  and  a  half  was  in- 
terest. The  domestic  debt,  of  which  nearly  a  third  was  for  arrears  of 
interest,  was  estimated  at  $42,414,085.  This  sum  included  two  millions 
which  was  allowed  for  claims  yet  unliquidated,  principally  outstanding 
continental  money.  The  secretary  proposed  to  assume  the  debts  of  the 
several  states,  estimated  at  $25,000,000,  and  then  to  fund  the  whole  debt. 

To  such  a  state  of  depression  had  the  public  credit  been  sunk,  that  the 
government  paper  had  been  parted  with  by  original  creditors  for  one- 
sixth  to  one-eighth  of  its  nominal  value;  and  it  was  still  doubtful 
whether  the  government  would  be  able  fully  to  discharge  its  obligations. 
Hence,  to  devise  a  plan  that  should  maintain  the  honor  and  retrieve  the 
credit  of  the  nation,  and  do  perfect  justice  to  all  the  public  creditors, 
was  not  an  easy  task.  That  any  plan  within  the  compass  of  human 
ingenuity  should  receive  the  unanimous  approval  of  congress,  was  not  to 
be  expected.  With  respect  to  the  recommendation  of  the  secrefary,  that 
the  foreign  debt  should  be  provided  for  according  to  the  precise  terms  of 
the  contract,  there  was  no  difference  of  opinion.  But  the  secretary 
"  regretted,  that  with  respect  to  the  domestic  debt,  the  same  unanimity 
did  not  prevail." 

The  secretary  supported  the  several  propositions  of  his  report  at 
length,  and  with  great  ability.  He  maintained  that  no  discrimination 
ought  to  be  made  between  original  holders  of  the  public  securities,  and 
present  possessors  by  purchase.  He  deemed  this  equally  unjust  and  im- 
politic ;  highly  injurious  even  to  the  original  holders,  and  ruinous  to 
public  credit.  Nor  did  he  think  a  difference  ought  to  be  permitted  to 
remain  between  the  creditors  of  the  union  and  those  of  individual  states. 
Both  descriptions  of  debt,  he  said,  were  contracted  for  the  same  objects, 
and  were  in  the  main  the  same.  A  great  part  of  the  debt  of  the  states 
had  been  contracted  by  them  on  account  of  the  union ;  and  it  was  most 
equitable  that  they  should  be  assumed  by  the  union. 

Several  plans  were  submitted  by  the  secretary  to  the  option  of  congress ; 
neither  of  which  was  adopted  entire,  but  together  formed  the  basis  of 
the  act  subsequently  passed.  It  was  proposed  to  open  new  loans  for  the 
full  r.mount  of  the  domestic  debt,  including  that  of  the  states,  and,  for 


A    SYSTEM    OF    FINANCE    ADOPTED.  79 

the  sums  subscribed,  to  receive  in  payment  certificates  of  debt  held  by 
public  creditors.  It  was  proposed,  that  for  every  hundred  dollars  sub- 
scribed payable  in  debt,  interest  as  well  as  principal,  the  subscriber 
should  have  two-thirds  funded  on  a  yearly  interest  of  six  per  cent.,  the 
current  rate,  (the  capital  to  be  redeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  govern- 
ment by  the  payment  of  the  principal,)  and  should  receive  the  other 
third  in  lands  of  the  western  territory  at  their  actual  value ;  or,  instead 
of  the  lands,  to  have,  at  the  end  of  ten  years,  $26,88  funded  at  the-  same 
rate  of  interest. 

Another  proposal  was,  to  have  the  whole  sum  funded  at  a  yearly  inter- 
est of  four  per  cent.,  irredeemable  by  any  payment  exceeding  five  dollars 
annually  on  the  hundred,  for  both  principal  and  interest ;  and  as  a  com- 
pensation for  the  reduction  of  interest,  $15,80  on  every  hundred,  payable 
in  land. 

There  were  still  other  propositions,  one  of  which  was,  the  payment  of 
subscriptions  in  annuities,  on  different  plans. 

An  argument  of  the  secretary  in  favor  of  funding  the  debt  was,  that 
the  provision  of  a  permanent  fund  for  its  payment  would,  by  establishing 
the  public  credit,  enable  the  government  in  any  emergency,  to  procure 
the  means  of  supplying  the  public  necessity.  It  was  said  also,  that  the 
fluctuation  and  insecurity  incident  to  an  unfunded  debt,  rendered  it  a 
mere  commodity,  and  a  precarious  one ;  and  being  only  an  object  of 
speculation,  the  money  thus  employed  was  so  much  diverted  from  more 
useful  purposes;  and  thus  contributed  to  the  scarcity  of  money.  Whereas, 
it  was  well  known,  that  in  countries  in  which  the  national  debt  was  pro- 
perly funded,  and  an  object  of  confidence,  it  served  most  of  the  purposes 
of  money.  Such,  he  believed,  would  be  the  result  in  America,  and  the 
capital  thus  created,  "  would  invigorate  all  the  operations  of  agriculture, 
manufactures,  and  commerce." 

The  proposition  to  restrict  the  government  to  the  payment  of  so  small 
sums  annually  toward  redeeming  the  capital  of  the  debt,  was  intended 
as  an  inducement  to  creditors  to  consent  to  the  arrangement.  The  rate 
of  interest  was  then  six  per  cent.;  but  it  was  presumed  that,  when  the  pub- 
lic credit  should  have  become  firmly  established,  the  government  would  be 
able  to  borrow  money  at  greatly  reduced  rates  ;  and  creditors  would  be 
compelled  to  receive  either  these  low  rates  of  interest,  or  the  payment 
of  the  capital.  By  the  proposed  arrangement,  creditors  would  be  assured, 
for  a  long  and  certain  period,  a  fixed  rate  of  interest,  at  six  per  cent.,  as 
an  equivalent  for  the  reduction  of  the  principal,  or  the  postponement  of 
the  interest  on  a  part  of  it.  As  creditors  were  left  free  to  accept  or 
reject  the  terms  offered,  those  who  should  not  subscribe,  were  to  receive 
a  dividend  of  the  surplus  that  should  remain  in  the  treasury  after  paying 


80 


THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


the  interest  of  the  loans.  But  as  the  funds  to  be  provided  were  not 
expected  to  produce  at  present  more  than  four  per  cent,  on  the  whole 
debt,  only  that  rate  of  interest  was  to  be  paid.  By  thus  reducing  either 
the  principal  or  the  rate  of  interest,  a  revenue  might  be  provided  suffi- 
cient to  meet  the  increased  demand  upon  the  treasury  caused  by  the 
adoption  of  the  proposed  measure.  For  this  purpose,  the  secretary 
recommended  an  increase  of  duties  on  wines,  spirits,  tea,  and  coffee,  and 
an  excise  tax  on  home  distilled  spirits. 

^'  This  celebrated  report,"  says  Judge  Marshall,  "  which  has  been  the 
fruitful  theme  of  extravagant  praise  and  bitter  censure,  merits  the  more 
attention,  because  in  the  measures  which  were  founded  on.it,  originated 
the  first  regular  and  systematic  opposition  to  the  principles  on  which 
the  affairs  of  the  union  were  administered." 

A  great  diversity  of  opinion  on  this  subject  prevailed  in  the  house. 
Hostility  to  funding  systems  generally  was  declared.  It  was  also  con- 
tended that  the  United  States  were  not  bound  to  pay  the  domestic  cre- 
ditors the  full  amount  expressed  in  their  certificates  of  debt,  because  the 
original  holders,  by  parting  with  them  at  two  shillings  and  six-pence  in 
the  pound,  had  fixed  the  value  of  their  claims,  and  a  motion  was  made, 
proposing  a  re-settlement  of  the  debt. 

To  this  proposition  it  was  objected,  that  creditors  had  a  right  to  place 
confidence  in  the  government  for  the  discharge  of  debts  acknowledged  to 
be  due  according  to  settlements  already  made.  For  a  legislature  to 
reduce  an  ascertained  debt,  was  pronounced  unjust,  and  subversive  of 
every  principle  on  which  public  contracts  are  founded.  The  motion 
was  lost. 

Mr.  Madison  proposed  to  pay  the  present  holders  of  certificates  the 
highest  price  which  the  debt  had  borne  in  the  market,  and  the  original 
holders  the  residue.  It  was  urged  in  favor  of  this  proposition,  that  the 
original  debt  was  to  have  been  paid  in  gold  and  silver ;  but  the  creditor 
bad  been  compelled  to  take  paper  at  a  great  loss,  in  consequence  of  the 
default  of  the  debtor,  who  ought  not  to  take  advantage  of  his  default. 
By  paying  him  the  average  price  at  which  the  debt  had  been  sold,  and 
the  original  holder  the  remainder,  equal  justice  would  be  done  to  both. 

It  was  said,  in  reply,  that  to  require  the  present  holders  to  relinquish 
a  part  of  their  claim,  for  which  they  had  paid  a  valuable  consideration, 
would  be  a  violation  of  contracts,  and  therefore  unconstitutional.  It 
was  not  the  business  of  the  legislature  to  inquire  into  private  tran- 
sactions between  individuals.  If  tlie  original  creditor  had  an  equitable 
claim  on  the  present  holder,  its  adjustment  belonged  to  the  judicial 
courts.  The  misfortune  of  those  who  had  been  obliged,  from  necessity, 
to  part  with  their  securities,  was  admitted ;  but  congress  could  not  afford 


A   SYSTEM    OF    FINAfSTCE    ADOPTED.  81 

redress.  Purchasers  had  placed  greater  confidence  in  the  government 
than  the  original  holder,  and  had  run  a  risk  in  purchasing  the  paper : 
they  were  therefore  justly  entitled  to  the  full  amount  of  their  claims. 
The  interests  of  the  community  were  promoted  by  making  a  public  debt 
transferable ;  but  interference  by  the  government  in  cases  of  transfer, 
would  destroy  confidence  in  public  engagements.  Besides,  certificates 
had  passed  through  several  hands,  and  intermediate  purchasers  had 
often  suffered  as  much  as  the  original  holder ;  but  for  them  no  relief 
was  proposed.  After  considerable  farther  debate,  the  question  was 
taken,  and  the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Madison  was  rejected,  thirty- 
six  to  thirteen. 

The  proposition  to  assume  the  debts  of  the  states,  was  the  subject  of 
greater  controversy,  and  a  more  excited  debate,  than  any  other  contained 
in  the  report. 

In  opposition  to  this  part  of  the  plan,  it  was  said,  that  the  creditors 
of  the  states  had  not  applied  to  congress  for  the  measure ;  and  it  was 
presumed  that  they  were  satisfied  with  what  the  states  had  done  for 
them,  and  did  not  wish  to  exchange  their  state  securities  for  those  of  the 
general  government.  The  task  of  providing  for  the  real  debts  of  the 
union  was  sufficiently  arduous,  and  the  assumption  of  more  debts  might 
disenable  the  government  from  doing  justice  to  its  real  creditors.  It  was 
said,  too,  that  the  debts  of  the  states  had  not  yet  been  ascertained,  and 
it  would  be  imprudent  to  assume  them  until  it  should  be  known  what 
were  the  balances  due  them  from  the  union,  as  the  augmentation  of  the 
debt  might  impose  a  burden  which  would  require  taxation  to  a  dangerous 
extent.  The  states  could  more  effectually,  and  with  less  dissatisfaction 
to  the  people,  provide  for  the  payment  of  their  debts,  than  the  general 
government.  The  assumption  would  be  unjust  also,  as  the  consumers  of 
foreign  articles  would  bear  the  whole  expense  of  the  war,  except  the  very 
trifling  revenues  to  be  derived  from  postage  and  excise  on  distilled  spirits. 
It  would  be  unjust  to  those  states  which  had  already  taxed  themselves 
heavily  to  discharge  their  debts,  as  they  would  be  obliged  to  bear  an 
equal  share  of  the  burden  with  others  which  had  made  little  exertion  to 
diminish  theirs.  It  was  objected,  too,  that  if  the  general  government 
was  made  to  pay  all  the  debts,  it  must  have  all  the  revenue,  which  was, 
in  effect,  to  have  all  the  power.  This  would  give  too  much  importance 
to  the  federal  government,  and  lessen  the  importance  of  the  state  gov- 
ernments, and  lead  to  too  close  a  consolidation  of  the  union.  Besides, 
the  measure  did  not  appear  to  be  constitutional,  no  power  having  been 
granted  to  the  general  government  to  assume  the  debts  of  the  states. 

It  was  farther  objected,  that  by  the  proposed  augmentation  of  the  debt 
of  the  union,  it  would  be  perpetuated.     A  public  debt  was  not  a  public 


82  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

blessing,  as  some  seemed  to  think,  but  an  evil ;  and  to  increase  it  by 
adding  to  it  tbe  debts  of  the  states,  would  increase  the  evil,  and  impair 
the  public  credit ;  it  was  the  character  of  paper  to  diminish  in  value,  in 
proportion  to  the  quantity  in  circulation.  These  debts,  too,  if  assumed 
by  the  union,  would,  as  the  continental  debt  had  already  done,  accumulate 
in  the  larger  cities,^nd  in  the  hands  of  foreigners;  and  the  greater  portion  of 
the  money  for  which  the  people  were  taxed,  would  go  out  of  the  country. 

It  was  urged  also,  that  a  portion  of  the  state  debts  had  been  contracted 
for  purposes  strictly  local ;  and  it  was  impossible  to  distinguish  these 
debts,  in  all  cases,  from  those  contracted  for  general  objects.  The  cre- 
ditors in  some  states  might  come  into  the  measure,  while  in  others  they 
refused :  this  would  render  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  carry  the 
system  into  effect.  Nor  was  it  probable  that  any  general  system  of  in- 
ternal taxation  would  be  acceptable  to  all  the  states.  Each  state,  there- 
fore, ought  to  be  left  free  to  adopt  such  a  system  of  revenue  as  it  should 
deem  best  adapted  to  its  circumstances. 

In  favor  of  assumption  it  was  said,  that  one  body  could  more  efficiently 
draw  forth  the  resources  of  the  union  than  many.  These  debts  must  be 
paid,  either  by  the  general  government  or  by  the  respective  states  ;  and 
it  could  be  done  with  greater  ease  and  facility,  and  with  less  expense, 
under  one  general  uniform  system.  Some  states  derived  their  revenue 
from  excise ;  and  if,  as  was  contemplated  by  the  proposed  plan,  excises 
should  be  laid  by  the  general  government  also,  there  would  be  a  clashing 
of  the  two  systems.  To  the  objection,  that  the  amount  of  the  states  had 
not  been  ascertained,  it  was  announced  that  it  had  been  ascertained 
not  to  exceed  twenty-five  millions;  and  congress  might  be  restricted 
to  that  amount.  It  had  been  said,  that  the  merits  of  particular 
claims  was  not  known.  They  had  been  proved  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  states,  and  that  was  a  sijfficient  guarantee  of  their  justice.  If  it 
was  for  the  true  interest  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  claimants, 
to  adopt  the  measure,  it  was  unnecessary  to  wait  for  applications.  If 
the  creditors  chose  to  change  their  state  securities  for  those  of  the  United 
States,  the  states  surely  could  have  no  objection :  they  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  transaction.  When  the  domestic  debt  should  be  funded,  the 
most  productive  revenues  would  be  taken  away  from  the  states  and  their 
ability  to  pay  would  be  lessened ;  and  the  state  creditors  would  prefer 
the  paper  of  the  United  States,  which  would  be  better  provided  for.  But 
if  any  state  creditors  should  refuse  to  subscribe,  let  the  states  receive  tbe 
money  from  the  general  government,  and  pay  it  over  to  their  creditors. 

To  the  alleged  injustice  of  throwing  the  burden  upon  the  consumers 
of  foreign  articles,  it  was  replied,  that  all  classes  of  inhabitants  were  con- 
sumers of  foreign  goods;  and  the  rich  families  consumed  much  more  tjian 


FUNDING  OF  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT.  83 

the  poor.  It  had  been  said  to  be  unjust  to  tax  states  that  had  made  great 
exertions  to  pay  their  debts,  equally  with  those  that  had  not.  To  this 
it  was  answered,  that  every  state  must  be  considered  to  have  exerted 
itself  to  the  extent  of  its  resources;  and  whether  it  was  unable  or 
unwilling  to  do  justice  to  its  creditors,  the  union  was  equally  bound  to 
assume  its  debts. 

To  the  argument  that  this  measure  would  lessen  the  influence  of  the 
state  governments,  it  was  replied,  that  congress,  as  well  as  the  state  legis- 
latures, derived  their  authority  from  the  people,  who  could  apply  the 
remedy  to  the  abuse  of  power  by  their  representatives. 

It  was  said  farther,  in  favor  of  assumption,  that  the  war  had  been  one 
in  which  the  states  had  made  common  cause.  Its  object  had  been  the 
liberty  and  independence,  not  of  any  particular  state,  but  of  all  the 
states ;  'and  the  debts  of  the  states  had  not  been  contracted  for  their 
individual  benefit,  but  for  the  benefit  of  the  union,  and  to  promote  a 
cause  in  which  all  the  states  had  an  equal  interest.  For  the  means  of 
payment,  the  states  had  relied  upon  imposts,  which  constituted  their 
principal  fund.  By  the  constitution  their  power  over  imposts  had  been 
assumed  by  the  federal  government,  which  ought  now  to  assume  their 
debts.  The  measure  was  also  constitutional.  The  confederation  author- 
ized congress  to  raise  money ;  but  congress  not  being  able  to  do  it  directly 
or  immediately,  did  it  mediately  through  the  state  governments :  hence, 
these  debts,  having  been  contracted  in  compliance  with  the  requisitions 
of  congress,  were  to  be  considered  the  debts  of  the  union. 

Creditors  of  the  states  and  those  of  the  United  States  ought  to  be 
placed  upon  the  same  footing.  Some  states,  possessing  greater  resources, 
might  make  ample  provision  for  the  payment  of  their  debts ;  while 
others,  having  less  means  and  a  larger  debt,  might  be  unable  to  do  their 
creditors  justice.  The  states,  deprived  of  the  power  to  lay  imposts,  must 
have  recourse  to  direct  taxes  and  excises.  These,  on  account  of  the  in- 
equality of  their  debts,  would  be  very  unequal  in  the  different  states. 
Direct  taxation  would  fall  most  heavily  upon  the  landed  interest,  and 
encourage  emigration  to  states  less  burdened  with  taxes.  The  aggregate 
amount  to  be  collected  from  the  people  was  the  same,  whether  the  debts 
were  assumed  or  not ;  and,  not  only  could  the  collection  be  made  more 
economically  under  one  uniform  system,  but  the  national  government, 
having  the  sole  management  of  the  revenues,  could  more  effectually  pro- 
mote the  various  branches  of  domestic  industry. 

The  friends  of  assumption  denied  that  they  considered  "  a  public 
debt  a  public  blessing ;"  they  admitted  it  to  be  an  evil.  The  debt  had 
been  already  contracted ;  and  they  desired  now  to  mitigate  the  evil. 
They  believed  it  better  policy  to  give  it  a  form  in  which   it  would  sub- 


84  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

serve  the  purpose  of  a  circulating  medium,  than  to  leave  it  a  subject  of 
mere  speculation.  If  adequate  funds  should  be  provided  for  the  payment 
of  the  debt,  its  effect  upon  the  public  credit  would  not  be  unfavorable. 
Nor  was  any  evil  to  be  apprehended  from  its  flowing  into  the  large  cities. 
It  would  be  a  moneyed  capital  held  by  those  who  wish  to  place  money  at 
interest.  Funding  the  debt  would  give  the  stock  a  permanent  character, 
and  enable  its  owners  to  sell  it  at  its  nominal  value,  instead  of  its  present 
low  rate.  No  injury  could  result  from  its  being  purchased  by  foreigners. 
Their  purchasing  our  funds  would  bring  specie  into  the  United  States ; 
and  the  sooner  the  debt  was  brought  to  its  proper  standard,  the  sooner 
these  benefits  would  be  realized. 

The  question  on  the  resolution  to  assume  the  state  debts,  was  carried, 
31  to  26.  A  few  days  after  this  decision,  the  representatives  from 
North  Carolina  arrived;  the  resolution  was  recommitted,  and  after 
another  warm  and  protracted  debate,  it  was  negatived^  by  a  majority 
of  two  votes !  Before  the  passage  of  the  funding  bill,  however,  the 
proposition  for  assumption  was  brought  forward  as  an  amendment  to 
the  bill,  but  in  a  modified  form.  Instead  of  assuming  an  uncertain  sum, 
the  amendment  proposed  the  assumption  of  specified  sums  from  each 
state.  But  the  committee  rose  before  a  direct  vote  could  be  had  upon 
the  motion ;  and  the  bill  reported  to  the  house  with  an  amendment  pro- 
posing to  fund  the  outstanding  continental  money  at  the  rate  of  seventy- 
five  for  one,  was  passed,  and  sent  to  the  senate  for  concurrence. 

While  the  funding  bill  was  pending  in  the  senate,  the  law  establishing 
a  temporary  and  permanent  seat  of  government  was  passed.  It  was  by 
the  aid  of  this  law,  that  the  friends  of  assumption  finally  succeeded  in 
carrying  the  latter  measure.  "Certain  northern  members  voted  to  fix  the 
seat  of  government  permanently  on  the  Potomac,  in  consideration  of 
receiving  in  return  a  sufficient  number  of  southern  votes  in  favor  of 
assumption,  to  carry  the  measure. 

The  act,  as  finally  passed,  authorized  the  president  to  borrow  not 
exceeding  $12,000,000,  for  the  payment  of  the  foreign  debt;  the  money 
borrowed  to  be  reimbursable  within  fifteen  years.  It  also  authorized  a 
new  loan  for  the  whole  of  the  domestic  debt ;  two-thirds  of  the  principal 
to  draw  interest  at  six  per  cent.,  to  commence  the  1st  of  January,  1791 ; 
the  other  third,  to  draw  the  same  interest,  but  not  to  commence  till  after 
the  year  1800.  Subscriptions  to  the  loan  were  payable  in  certificates  of 
the  domestic  debt  at  their  par  value,  and  in  continental  bills  of  credit,  at 
the  rate  of  one  hundred  for  one :  the  debt  to  be  redeemable  by  payments 
not  exceeding  eight  per  cent,  annually,  on  account  of  both  principal  and 
interest.  Arrears  of  interest  were  also  to  be  funded  to  the  full  amount, 
but  to  draw  interest  at  only  three  per  cent.,  commencing  the  Ist  of  Jan- 


FUNDING  OF  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT.  85 

Tiary,  1791,  and  to  be  redeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  government. 
Non-subscribing  creditors  were  entitled  to  the  same  interest  as  sub- 
scribers ;  but  they  were  left  to  greater  uncertainty,  as  they  could  be  paid 
only  out  of  any  surplus  in  the  treasury. 

Of  the  debts  of  the  states  $21,500,000  were  assumed,  in  specific  sums 
from  each  state,  regard  being  had  to  the  amount  of  indebtedness  of  each. 
They  were  as  follows  :  From  Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina,  each 
$4,000,000;  Virginia,  $3,500,000;  North  Carolina,  $2,400,000;  Penn- 
sylvania, $2,200,000;  Connecticut,  $1,600,000  ;  New  York,  $1,200,000; 
New  Jersey  and  Maryland,  each  $800,000  ;  New  Hampshire  and  Georgia, 
each  $300,000;  Ehode  Island  and  Delaware,  each  $200,000;  (the 
former  having  joined  the  union,  and  her  delegation  having  arrived  before 
the  passage  of  this  act.)  For  these  state  debts  an  additional  loan  was 
to  be  opened,  but  on  terms  different  from  that  for  the  continental  debt. 
Four-ninths  was  to  bear  an  interest  of  six  per  cent.,  commencing  on  the 
1st  of  January,  1792;  two-ninths,  the  same  interest  after  the  year  1800; 
and  the  other  third  three  per  cent,  from  January,  1 792.  No  certificates 
of  state  debts  were  to  be  received  on  subscriptions,  except  such  as  had 
been  issued  for  services  or  supplies  in  the  war.  A  board,  consisting  of 
three  commissioners,  was  constituted  to  settle  the  accounts  between  the 
states  and  the  United  States. 

The  duties  imposed  by  the  act  of  the  last  session  were  increased ;  and 
the  duties  on  imports  and  tonnage,  (after  deducting  $600,000  annually 
for  current  expenses,)  together  with  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  western 
lands,  were  pledged  as  a  permanent  fund,  for  the  payment  of  the  public 
debt. 

At  this  session  of  congress,  the  cession,  by  North  Carolina,  of  her 
western  lands,  was  received  and  approved  ;  and  the  territory  south  of 
the  Ohio  was  formed  into  a  government,  similar  to  that  previously  estab- 
blished  north  of  that  river.  Its  constitution  did  not,  however,  embrace 
the  anti-slavery  proviso  contained  in  the  constitution  of  the  north-western 
territory. 

The  establishment  of  a  permanent  seat  of  government  for  the  United 
States,  after  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Great  Britain,  received  the 
early  attention  of  Congress.  In  the  month  of  June,  1783,  congress  then 
sitting  at  Philadelphia,  was  surrounded  and  insulted  by  a  small  body  of 
mutineers  of  the  continental  army ;  and  having,  on  application  to  the 
executive  authority  of  Pennsylvania,  failed  to  receive  protection,  removed 
to  Princeton,  in  New  Jersey,  and  afterwards,  for  the  sake  of  greater  con- 
venience, adjourned  to  Annapolis.  This  circumstance  probably  sug- 
gested to  congress  the  necessity  of  some  place  for  a  permanent  residence 
under  its  own  authority,  which  was  subsequently  provided  for  in  the 


8b  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

constitution.  [Art.  I,  sec.  8,  clause  17.]  In  October,  1783,  it  was 
resolved,  that  buildings  for  the  use  of  congress  should  be  erected  on  the 
banks  of  the  Delaware ;  and  a  few  days  later,  that  buildings  for  a  simi- 
lar purpose  should  likewise  be  erected  on  the  Potomac,  with  the 
view  of  reconciling  the  conflicting  wishes  of  the  northern  and  south- 
ern states,  by  establishing  two  seats  of  government.  In  December,  1784, 
it  was  farther  resolved  that  a  district  should  be  purchased  on  the  banks 
of  the  Delaware  for  a  federal  town,  and  that  contracts  should  be  made 
for  the  necessary  buildings.  But  the  appropriation  of  the  money  for 
these  purposes,  requiring  the  assent  of  nine  states,  was  prevented  by  the 
southern  interest. 

The  subject  came  up  before  the  new  congress,  near  the  close  of  the 
first  session.  The  eastern  states  wished,'  at  least  for  the  present,  to 
retain  the  seat  of  government  at  New  York.  Pennsylvania  endeavored 
to  bring  it  back  to  Philadelphia  or  its  vicinity.  The  southern  states 
desired  its  establishment  on  the  Potomac.  A  majority  of  both  houses 
not  having  agreed  upon  anyplace,  the  subject  was  postponed  till  the  next 
session ;  when,  by  a  combination  between  the  friends  of  Philadelphia, 
(aided  also,  as  has  been  observed,  by  certain  northern  members,)  and  the 
friends  of  the  Potomac,  the  seat  of  government  was  to  be  at  Philadel- 
phia for  ten  years,  the  time  estimated  to  be  necessary  to  erect  the  public 
buildings,  and  after  the  expiration  of  that  term,  to  be  permanently  fixed 
on  the  Potomac. 


CHAPTER   YL 

EXCISE   ON   DISTILLED    SPIRITS. INCORPORATION   OF    A  NATIONAL    BANK. 

APPORTIONMENT    BILL. WAR   WITH    THE    WESTERN   INDIANS. 

The  third  session  of  the  first  congress,  (this  congress  having  held 
three  sessions,)  met  at  Philadelphia,  on  Monday,  the  6th  of  December,. 
1790.  Provision  was  to  be  made  at  this  session  for  the  payment  of  the 
assumed  debts  of  the  states.  The  secretary  of  the  treasury  had,  in  his 
original  report,  suggested  for  this  purpose  an  increase  of  duties  on  im- 
ported wines,  spirits,  tea  and  coffee,  and  a  duty  on  home  distilled  spirits. 
The  assumption  had  not  been  adopted  until  near  the  close  of  the  session, 
and  the  strong  objections  to  the  proposed  revenue  measure  which  had 


EXCISE    OX    DISTILLED    SPIRITS.  87 

been  expressed,  gave  indications  of  a  long  discussion,  upon  which  mem- 
bers were  not  then  disposed  to  enter :  and  as  the  interest  to  be  provided 
for  was  not  to  commence  until  the  year  1792,  the  subject  was  deferred 
to  the  next  session,  and  the  secretary  was  ordered  to  report  such  far- 
ther provision  as  he  should  think  necessary  for  the  support  of  the  public 
credit. 

Party  lines  began  to  be  more  distinctly  marked.  The  anti-federalists, 
having  in  a  great  measure  relaxed  their  hostility  to  the  constitution,  now 
arrayed  themselves  against  the  financial  measures  of  the  government. 
No  general  opposition  had  been  made  by  that  party  to  the  funding  of  the 
continental  debt ;  but  the  assumption  of  the  state  debts  encountered  a 
bitter  hostility  from  the  beginning ;  and,  in  connection  with  certain  other 
measures,  was  made  the  ground  of  general  and  open  opposition  of  the 
anti-federalists  to  the  administration.  Resolutions  denouncing  the 
scheme  were  passed  by  the  legislatures  of  Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  Mary- 
land, and  North  Carolina.  The  peculiar  friends  of  tlie  state  govern- 
ments regarded  with  jealousy  any  measure  of  internal  taxation  by  the 
general  government ;  and  their  aversion  to  excises  needed  little  stimulus 
like  that  administered  by  their  state  legislatures,  to  raise  it  to  indigna- 
tion. To  this  cause,  in  part,  has  been  ascribed  the  forcible  resistance,  in 
western  Pennsylvania,  to  the  execution  of  the  law,  of  which  wc  shall 
soon  have  occasion  to  speak.  The  more  western  portion  of  the  popula- 
tion being  to  a  less  extent  the  consumers  of  foreign  goods,  and  conse- 
quently less  affected  by  imposts,  the  greatest  opposition  to  the  duty  on 
domestic  distilled  spirits  came  from  that  quarter. 

A  bill  conforming  to  the  report  of  the  secretary  was  introduced,  and, 
after  a  strong  and  vehement  opposition,  chiefly  from  southern  and  west- 
ern members,  was  passed.  The  principal  objections  urged  against  the 
bill,  were,  that  sufficient  evidence  had  not  been  given  of  the  insufficiency 
of  the  taxes  already  imposed,  to  meet  the  public  demand ;  that  the  tax 
was  unequal,  as  it  would  throw  the  greatest  burden  upon  those  parts  of 
the  country  which  afforded  no  substitute  for  ardent  spirits  ]  and  that  a 
less  exceptionable  source  of  revenue  might  be  found.  A  general  increase 
of  duty  on  imports  ;  a  duty  on  molasses,  a  direct  tax,  a  tax  on  salaries, 
pensions  and  lawyers ;  a  duty  on  newspapers,  and  stamp  duties,  were 
severally  mentioned  by  different  members,  as  preferable  to  an  excise  on 
spirits. 

In  favor  of  the  bill  it  was  said,  that  estimates  founded  on  official  state- 
ments of  the  receipts  into  the  treasury  since  the  revenue  bill  went  into 
operation,  and  other  reliable  data,  showed  the  insufficiency  of  the  exist- 
ing sources  of  revenue.  Imposts  on  foreign  goods  could  not  be  safely 
carried  farther.     Mercantile  capital  was  too  limited,  and  the  increased 


88  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

duties  might  induce  smuggling,  and  diminish  the  revenue  instead  of 
increasing  it.  Experience  had  proved,  that  a  tax  on  consumption  was 
less  burdensome  than  a  tax  on  property ;  that,  by  indirect  and  insensible 
means,  more  could  be  drawn  from  the  people  than  by  open  and  direct 
taxation.  The  proposed  tax  was  not  unequal,  and  liable  to  the  objec- 
tions against  excises  generally,  the  burden  of  which  fell  upon  the  poor 
who  buy  in  small  quantities,  whilst  the  rich  by  storing  their  cellars, 
escaped  the  duty.  This  bill  required  the  duty  to  be  paid  by  the  im- 
porter of  foreign  spirits,  and  by  the  manufacturer  of  domestic  spirits, 
and  no  article  was  a  fitter  subject  of  taxation.  The  bill  passed  the 
house  by  a  vote  of  35  to  21,  and  went  to  the  senate,  where  it  received 
some  slight  amendment,  which  was  concurred  in  by  the  house. 

The  establishment  of  a  national  bank  was  the  most  prominent  measure 
of  the  session.  In  reporting  farther  provisions  for  establishing  the  pub- 
lic credit,  the  secretary  expressed  the  "  conviction,  that  a  national  bank 
is  an  institution  ot  primary  importance  to  the  prosperous  administration 
of  the  finances,  and  would  be  of  the  greatest  utility  in  the  operations 
connected  with  the  support  of  the  public  credit." 

In  the  whole  course  of  legislation  under  the  constitution,  no  other 
question — that  of  a  protective  tarifi",  perhaps,  alone  excepted — has  been 
more  thoroughly  discussed  than  the  one  under  consideration.  Bills  for 
the  incorporation  of  a  national  bank  have  been  no  less  than  nine  or  ten 
times  before  the  national  legislature,  and  several  times  has  the  measure 
been  arrested  by  the  executive  veto.  At  every  discussion,  the  whole 
field  of  argument  has  been  explored  for  reasons  in  favor  of  and  against 
an  institution  of  this  kind  ;  and  quite  as  often  has  it  been  to  the  party 
politician  the  theme  of  fierce  declamation,  as  to  the  statesman  a  subject 
of  candid  investigation.  Not  only  have  the  most  eminent  statesmen  dif- 
fered on  the  question,  but  the  same  individuals  have  at  different  times 
opposed  and  supported  the  measure.  Not  only  so ;  political  parties  as 
such,  have  changed  sides  on  the  question,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  course 
of  our  history. 

The  slightest  notice,  in  this  work,  of  all  the  arguments  that  have  been 
adduced  for  and  against  a  national  bank,  is  impossible.  With  a  view  to 
preparing  the  public  judgment  for  a  future  decision  of  this  question, 
such  notice  would  be  unnecessary,  as  the  subject,  probably,  will  not  be 
again  agitated.  For,  conceding  a  national  bank,  as  a  fiscal  agent  of  the 
government,  to  have  been  convenient  and  useful,  or  even  necessary,  at 
the  time  of  its  establishment,  and  during  the  greater  portion  of  the 
period  of  its  existence ;  its  necessity  at  the  present  time,  and  under 
existing  circumstances,  will  not  be  affirmed  ;  and  no  party  will  be  likely 
to  hazard  its  fortunes  by  the  revival  of  a  question  which  has  more  than 


NATIONAL    BANK.  89 

once  largely  contributed  to  the  defeat  of  one  of  the  great  political  parties. 
Yet,  as  it  has  several  times  constituted  one  of  the  main  issues  which 
have  divided  the  great  parties  of  this  country,  it  deserves  consideration. 

The  report  of  the  secretary  was  elaborate,  embracing  a  great  variety 
of  argument.  In  favor  of  banks  generally,  it  stated,  that  they  had  ex- 
isted among  the  principal  and  most  enlightened  commercial  nations,  and 
their  utility  had  been  tested  by  an  experience  of  centuries.  They  had 
given  aid  to  trade  and  industry,  and,  in  certain  emergencies,  to  the  gov- 
ernment itself.  Among  the  advantages  of  a  bank  were  mentioned  the 
following :  First,  the  augmentation  of  the  active  or  productive  capital 
of  a  country.  Secondly,  the  greater  facility  which  it  affords  to  the  gov- 
ernment in  obtaining  pecuniary  aids,  especially  in  sudden  emergencies. 
Thirdly,  the  facilitating  of  the  payment  of  duties  ;  as  was  proved  by  the 
accommodations  afforded  by  banks  to  those  who  resided  near  them,  in 
the  payment  of  duties.  The  report  alluded  to  the  bank  of  North  Amer- 
ica, in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  incorporated  by  the  old  congress,  in 
1781,  and  to  the  aid  it  afforded  the  United  States  during  the  remaining 
period  of  the  war,  and  since  the  peace.  Its  capital,  however,  was  now 
too  small  for  the  wants  of  the  government,  and  it  had  become  a  state 
institution,  under  a  charter  from  the  state  of  Pennsylvania.  The  report 
also  gave  the  plan  of  a  bank,  with  such  restrictions  and  safeguards  as 
were  deemed  requisite. 

The  bill  came  to  the  house  from  the  senate,  and  received  no  opposi- 
tion until  after  its  third  reading.  An  effort  was  made  for  its  j;ecommit- 
ment,  and  lost.  The  question  being  on  its  final  passage,  Mr.  Madison, 
one  of  the  leading  opponents  of  the  bill,  opened  the  debate  in  a  very  able 
speech.  He  admitted  some  of  the  advantages  of  banks.  They  were, 
(1.)  The  aid  they  afforded  merchants  in  extending  their  mercantile  ope- 
rations with  the  same  capital,  (2.)  The  aids  to  merchants  in  paying 
punctually  the  customs.  (3.)  Aids  to  the  government  in  complying 
punctually  with  its  engagements  when  deficiencies  or  delays  happen  in 
the  revenue.  (4.)  Diminishing  usury.  (5.)  Saving  the  wear  of  gold  and 
silver  kept  in  the  vaults,  and  represented  by  notes.  (6.)  Facilitating 
occasional  remittances  from  different  places  where  notes  happen  to  cir- 
culate. 

The  principal  disadvantages  of  banks  consisted  in,  (1.)  Banishing  the 
precious  metals  by  substituting  another  medium  to  perform  their  office. 
(2.)  Exposing  the  public  and  individuals  to  the  evils  of  a  run  on  the 
bank,  which  might  happen  from  various  causes,  as  false  rumors,  bad  man- 
agement of  the  institution,  an  unfavorable  balance  of  trade,  &c.  He 
thought  the  most  important  advantages  of  banks  could  be  better  obtained 
from  several  banks,  properly  distributed ;  as  aids  to  commerce  could 
only  be  afforded  near  the  seat  of  banks. 


90  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  main  objection  to  the  bill,  however,  was  founded  on  its  unconsti- 
tionality.  Mr.  Madison  said ;  a  power  to  grant  charters  of  incorpora- 
tion had  been  proposed  in  the  general  convention,  and  rejected.  He 
denied  that  the  power  claimed  was  implied  in  the  "  power  to  pass  all 
laws  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  into  effect  the  foregoing  powers.'' 
The  meaning  of  this  clause  must  be  limited  to  means  necessary  to  the 
end,  and  incident  to  the  nature  of  the  specified  powers.  The  clause 
merely  declares  what  would  have  resulted  by  unavoidable  implication  as 
the  appropriate,  and,  as  it  were,  technical  means  of  executing  those  pow- 
ers. A  bank  might  be  useful  and  convenient  for  collecting  taxes,  bor- 
rowing money,  paying  debts,  and  providing  for  the  general  welfare  ;  but 
it  was  not  absolutely  necessary. 

Others,  however,  did  not  admit  the  advantages  of  a  bank  to  the  same 
extent  as  Mr.  Madison.  The  facility  of  borrowing  from  it  would  involve 
the  union  in  irretrievable  debts.  State  banks,  it  was  contended,  could 
render  the  desired  aids  to  better  effect  than  a  single  bank  like  that  con- 
templated ;  and  the  latter  would  swallow  up  the  former.  They  opposed 
the  loose  construction  of  the  words  "  necessary  and  proper."  A  "  neces- 
sary means  to  produce  a  given  end,  was  the  means  without  which  the 
end  could  not  be  produced ^ 

The  advocates  of  the  measure  relied  upon  experience  and  the  testimony 
of  the  commercial  world,  to  settle  the  question  as  to  the  utility  of  such 
an  institution.  The  new  capital  would  invigorate  trade  and  manufac- 
tures with  new  energy.  It  would  furnish  a  medium  for  the  collection 
of  the  revenues ;  and  if  government  should  be  pressed  by  a  sudden  ne- 
cessity, it  would  afford  seasonable  and  effectual  aid,  It  was  admitted 
that  congress  could  exercise  those  powers  only  which  were  granted  by 
the  constitution ;  but  incidental  as  well  as  express  powers  belonged  to 
every  government.  When  power  is  given  to  effect  particular  objects,  all 
the  known  and  usual  means  of  effecting  them  pass  as  incidental  to  such 
power.  A  bank  was  a  known  and  usual  means  of  carrying  into  effect 
several  of  the  powers  granted  to  the  government.  Most  of  the  laws 
enacted  under  the  new  constitution,  had  been  enacted  by  the  authority 
of  implied  powers.  Laws  had  been  made  to  tax  ships,  erect  light-houses, 
govern  seamen,  &c.,  under  the  power  to  regulate  commerce.  A  majority 
of  the  laws  enacted  under  the  new  constitution,  had  been  made  by 
authority  of  powers  incidental  to,  or  implied  in,  powers  expressly  dele- 
gated. 

The  discussion  continued,  with  little  intermission,  from  the  1st  to  the 
9th  of  February,  when  the  bill  passed,  39  to  20.  All  who  voted  in  the 
negative,  except  one,  were  from  the  states  of  Maryland,  Virginia,  North 
Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Greorgia.     All  who  were  present  from  the 


INCORPORATION   OF    A   NATIONAL    BANK.  91 

other  states,  except  one  from  Massachusetts,  voted  in  the  affirmative ;  to- 
gether with  two  from  Maryland,  two  from  North  Carolina,  and  one  from 
South  Carolina. 

The  president,  before  signing  the  bill,  required  the  written  opinions 
of  the  members  of  his  cabinet  as  to  its  constitutionality.  The  secretaries 
of  the  treasury  and  of  war,  (Hamilton  and  Knox,)  affirmed  the  bill  to  be 
constitutional ;  the  secretary  of  state  and  the  attorney-general,  (Jefferson 
and  Randolph,)  expressed  the  contrary  opinion.  After  mature  deliber- 
ation, the  president  signed  the  bill. 

The  capital  stock  of  the  bank  was  limited  to  $10,000,000 ;  $2,000,000 
to  be  subscribed  for  the  benefit  of  the  United  States,  the  residue  by  indi- 
viduals ;  the  whole  to  be  divided  into  25,000  shares,  of  $400  each ;  and 
no  person,  copartnership,  or  corporation,  to  subscribe  for  more  than  1000 
shares.  One-fourth  of  the  sum  subscribed,  was  to  be  payable  in  gold 
and  silver,  and  three-fourths  in  public  debt ;  one-fourth  to  be  paid  on 
subscribing,  and  the  remainder  in  three  instalments,  semi-annually.  The 
corporation  was  not  to  own  property,  including  its  capital,  to  a  greater 
amount  than  $15,000,000;  nor  were  its  debts,  exclusive  of  deposits,  to 
exceed  $10,000,000.  It  might  sell  any  part  of  the  public  debt  compos- 
ing its  stock,  but  not  purchase  any  public  debt,  nor  trade  in  anything 
except  bills  of  exchange,  and  gold  and  silver  bullion,  nor  take  a  higher 
rate  of  interest  than  six  per  cent.  It  was  to  be  a  bank  of  deposit  and 
discount ;  and  its  bills  were  to  be  payable  in  specie,  and  receivable  in  all 
payments  to  the  United  States.  No  loan  was  to  be  made  to  the  United 
States  exceeding  $100,000;  nor  to  any  particular  state  exceeding 
$50,000 ;  nor  to  a  foreign  prince  or  state  to  any  amount,  unless  pre- 
viously authorized  by  an  act  of  congress.  The  bank  was  to  be  located 
at  Philadelphia,  with  power  in  the  directors  to  establish  offices  of  dis- 
count and  deposit  only,  wherever  they  should  think  fit,  within  the  United 
States.  The  charter  was  to  continue  twenty  years ;  and  no  other  bank 
was  to  be  established  by  congress  within  that  period. 

The  inconveniences  arising  from  the  disordered  state  of  the  currency, 
demanded  some  measure  of  relief.  The  balance  of  trade  having  always 
been  against  the  colonies,  coin  had  flowed  towards  England.  This  had 
induced  the  issue,  in  some  colonies,  of  government  bills,  or  treasury 
notes,  which  were  sometimes  made  a  legal  tender  in  payment  of  debts.  In 
others,  they  were  loaned  on  interest,  thus  furnishing  a  source  of  revenue 
to  the  government,  and  serving  as  a  medium  of  trade.  These  paper 
issues  were  carried  to  such  an  extreme,  that  parliament  had  found  it 
necessary  to  restrict  them.  During  the  war,  all  restraint  being  removed 
and  necessity  impelling  to  the  measure,  paper  money  was  issued  more 
profusely  than  ever  before ;  so  that  both  continental  and  state  bills  be- 


92  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

came  almost  worthless,  and  ceased  to  circulate.  Such  was  the  deprecia- 
tion of  the  former  in  the  hands  of  the  holders,  that  a  debt  of  two  hun- 
dred millions  of  dollars  had  been  reduced  by  an  act  of  congress  to  five 
millions,  being  at  the  rate  of  forty  for  one.  And  nearly  eighty  millions 
yet  outstanding,  were,  as  has  been  stated,  funded  at  the  rate  of  one  hun- 
dred for  one.     [Appendix,  Note  A.] 

Sensible  relief  had  been  afforded,  near  the  close  of  the  war,  by  the 
bank  of  North  America,  as  has  been  observed.  This  institution  was  ori- 
ginated by  Robert  Morris,  at  that  time  superintendent  of  the  continental 
finances,  and  was  designed  to  aid  him  in  the  duties  of  his  ofl&ce.  It  was 
the  first  institution  in  this  country  which  issued  bills  of  credit  payable 
in  cash.  The  advantages  of  this  redeemable  currency,  not  only  to  the 
government,  but  to  trade  in  general,  led  to  the  establishment  of  a  similar 
bank  at  New  York,  and  another  at  Boston,  and  subsequently  the 
national  bank  just  described.  No  others  were  at  that  time  in  existence 
in  the  United  States.  The  constitutional  power  of  the  old  congress  to 
charter  a  bank  having  been  questioned,  a  new  charter  was  obtained  from 
the  state  of  Pennsylvania ;  after  which  its  connection  with  the  national 
government  ceased.  Hence,  to  furnish  the  government  with  an  institu- 
tion then  deemed  necessary  as  a  fiscal  agent,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
increase  the  amount  of  banking  capital  to  meet  the  increased  demands 
of  trade,  the  new  bank  was  established. 

A  law  was  passed  at  this  session,  admitting  the  new  state  of  Kentucky, 
formed  from  Virgihia,  into  the  union ;  the  admission  to  take  place  the 
1st  of  June  following,  (1792.)  Vermont  also  was  admitted,  to  come 
into  the  union  on  the  termination  of  the  present  session  of  congress. 

The  second  congress  met  on  the  24th  of  October,  1791.  The  condi- 
tion of  the  country  at  this  time,  presented  a  marked  contrast  with  that 
in  which  it  had  been  found  by  the  first  congress.  The  president,  in  his 
speech  at  the  opening  of  the  session,  thus  congratulated  congress  on  the 
improved  situation  of  the  country : 

"  Your  own  observation  in  your  respective  districts,  will  have  satisfied 
you  of  the  progressive  state  of  agriculture,  manufactures,  commerce,  and 
navigation.  In  tracing  its  causes,  you  will  have  remarked  with  particu- 
lar pleasure,  the  happy  effects  of  that  revival  of  confidence,  public  as 
well  as  private,  to  which  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States 
so  obviously  contributed.  And  you  will  have  observed,  with  no  less 
interest,  new  and  decisive  proofs  of  the  increasing  reputation  and  credit 
of  the  nation."  The  readiness  with  which  the  stock  of  the  bank  had 
been  taken,  he  mentioned  as  "  among  the  striking  and  pleasing  evidences, 
not  only  of  confidence  in  the  government,  but  of  resources  in  the  com- 
munity." 


APPORTIONMENT   BILL.  93 

Among  the  subjects  to  which  the  president  called  the  attention  of  con- 
gress, was  the  hostility  of  the  north-western  Indians,  whose  depredations 
on  the  frontiers  had  made  it  necessary  to  send  an  expedition  against 
them,  and  with  whom  farther  hostilities  were  anticipated.  With  some 
of  the  tribes  provisional  treaties  had  been  negotiated ;  to  others,  over- 
tures of  peace  were  still  continued.  He  also  suggested  a  modification  of 
the  act  laying  duties  on  distilled  spirits,  which  had  caused,  in  some 
places,  considerable  discontent. 

Of  the  members  of  the  former  house,  about  one- third  had  been  reelected. 
Although  the  administration  majority  had  been  somewhat  reduced,  it  was 
yet  considerable ;  and,  as  before,  the  opposition  members  were  principally 
from  the  five  southern-most  states.  In  the  senate,  a  still  larger  propor- 
tional majority  were  supporters  of  the  administration. 

The  apportionment  of  representatives,  according  to  the  census  of  1 790, 
was  made  at  this  session  of  congress.  In  order  to  obtain  the  largest  possi- 
ble number  of  representatives,  it  was  determined  to  adopt  the  lowest  ratio 
allowed  by  the  constitution.  A  bill  was  passed  by  the  house,  and  sent 
to  the  senate,  where  it  was  amended  by  making  the  apportionment  con- 
formable to  a  ratio  of  33,000.  The  house  disagreeing  to  the  amend- 
ment, the  bill  was  lost.  A  second  bill,  based  on  a  ratio  of  30,000,  was, 
after  much  disagreement,  passed  by  both  houses.  By  this  bill,  the  whole 
representative  population  of  the  United  States  was  divided  by  the  ratio, 
and  the  number  thus  obtained  was  to  be  the  whole  number  of  represen- 
tatives, to  be  apportioned  among  the  several  states.  But  as  there  would 
remain  in  each  state  a  fraction  of  the  population  unrepresented  ;  and  as 
these  fractional  numbers  of  the  several  states  amounted  in  the  aggregate 
to  a  population  entitled  to  several  representatives,  these  representatives 
were  apportioned  to  those  states  having  the  largest  fractions. 

This  bill  was  negatived  by  the  president  as  unconstitutional,  for  the 
reason  that  those  states  to  which  a  representative  was  given  for  their 
fractional  numbers,  had  more  than  one  representative  for  every  30,000 
inhabitants.  According  to  the  president's  construction  of  the  constitu- 
tion [Art.  I,  sec.  2,  clause  3,]  each  state  was  restricted  to  a  representative 
for  every  30,000  inhabitants  ;  consequently  the  fractional  number  could 
have  no  representative ;  and  the  aggregate  number  of  representatives 
composing  the  house  must  be  less  than  the  number  obtained  by  dividing 
the  whole  population  of  all  the  states  by  the  ratio.  The  president  con- 
sulted his  cabinet  on  the  question,  who  were  equally  divided,  as  on  the 
question  of  the  bank.  In  the  present  case,  however,  he  concurred  in  the 
opinions  of  Jefferson  and  Randolph. 

A  third  bill  was  then  introduced,  fixing  the  ratio  at  33,000,  and  appor- 
tioning the  representatives  in  conformity  with  the  views  of  the  president, 


94  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

and  was  passed  without  much  opposition.     It  gave  a  house  of  105 
members. 

Intelligence  of  the  defeat  of  the  American  army  under  G-en.  St.  Clair, 
by  the  Western  Indians,  near  the  Ohio  river,  which  had  occurred  in 
November,  was  received  by  the  president  in  December,  and  communi- 
cated to  congress.  In  accordance  with  a  report  of  the  secretary  of  war, 
a  bill,  providing  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  and  proposing  to  raise  an 
additional  military  force,  was  introduced  into  the  house  of  representa- 
tives, and  passed,  though  not  without  a  vigorous  opposition.  It  was 
argued  that  the  war  was  unjust ;  the  hostility  of  the  Indians  having 
been  instigated  by  the  British,  who  were  still  permitted  to  occupy  the 
western  posts,  and  by  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  having  tran- 
scended their  proper  boundaries.  Let  these  causes  be  removed,  and 
hostilities  would  cease.  Not  the  least  objection  to  the  war  was  the  addi- 
tional draft  upon  the  treasury,  and  the  consequent  increase  of  taxes  which 
it  would  occasion.  A  prosecution  of  the  war  was  said  to  be  unnecessary. 
Peace  could  be  obtained  in  some  other  way,  and  at  much  less  expense. 
But,  conceding  its  necessity,  the  force  which  had  been  already  authorized, 
would,  when  raised,  be  sufficient  without  the  additional  regiments  pro- 
posed by  the  bill. 

On  the  other  side  it  was  alleged,  that  the  war  had  been  undertaken 
simply  to  defend  our  citizens  on  the  frontiers.  Since  1783,  more  than 
two  thousand  persons  had  been  massacred  or  carried  into  captivity. 
Treaties  of  peace  had  been  proposed,  but  the  Indians  had  revised  to  treat. 
Nor  could  they  be  pacified  by  repurchasing  their  lands.  War  would 
again  break  out,  and  force  must  at  last  be  employed  to  obtain  a  per- 
manent peace.  Averse  as  the  people  were  to  taxes,  they  would  regard 
money  as  of  little  value  in  comparison  with  the  lives  of  their  fellow- 
citizens.  And  it  would  be  more  economical,  by  a  competent  force,  at 
once  to  terminate  the  contest,  than  to  protract  hostilities  by  a  weaker 
army. 

Gen.  St.  Clair  having  resigned  the  command  of  the  army,  G-en.  Wayne 
was  appointed  to  succeed  him.  The  final  defeat  of  the  Indians  did  not 
take  place  until  nearly  two  years  after. 

The  secretary  of  the  treasury  having  been  called  on  by  the  house  to 
report  the  ways  and  means  of  meeting  the  additional  demands  upon  the 
treasury  which  would  be  occasioned  by  the  war,  recommended  an  in- 
crease of  duties  ;  and  a  new  tariff  act,  conforming  in  most  of  its  details, 
to  the  secretary's  report,  was  passed.  By  this  act,  a  discrimination  was 
made  in  favor  of  certain  articles  with  a  view  to  the  encouragement  of 
American  industry.  The  excise  act  being  unpopular  in  some  sections  of 
the  union,  the  duty  on  domestic  spirits  was  somewhat  diminished,  and 
increased  on  those  imported. 


OPPOSITION  TO  Washington's  administration. 


95 


Laws  were  also  passed  at  this  session  for  the  encouragement  of  fishing, 
by  granting  bounties  to  the  owners  of  fishing  vessels  and  to  the  fisher- 
men ;  for  providing  more  effectually  for  the  public  defense,  by  establish- 
ing a  uniform  militia  system  ;  for  authorizing  the  president,  in  case  of 
invasion  or  insurrection,  to  call  forth  the  militia ;  for  establishing  a 
mint  and  regulating  the  coinage ;  for  reorganizing  the  post-office ;  for 
regulating  the  election  of  president  and  vice-president,  and  for  declaring 
what  officer  shall  act  as  president  in  case  of  vacancy  in  the  offices  of  pre- 
sident and  vice-president. 

On  the  8th  of  May,  congress  adjourned  to  the  first  Monday  of 
November. 


CHAPTER   VII. 


opposition    to    WASHINGTON'S    ADMINISTRATION. DIFFERENCES    BETWEEN 

secretaries     JEFFERSON    AND     HAMILTON. WHISKY    INSURRECTION. 

FUGITIVE  LAW. CONSTITUTION  AMENDED. 


The  ground  of  controversy  between  the  two  parties  had  now  become 
essentially  changed.  The  constitution  was  rapidly  increasing  in  the 
popular  favor.  The  minority  had  withdrawn  chiefly  their  opposition 
from  its  original  objects,  and  were  now  directing  it  against  the  adminis- 
tration. Unwilling  longer  to  bear  a  name  which  implied  hostility  to  the 
constitution,  they  renounced  the  name  of  "  anti-federalists,"  and  assumed 
that  of  "  republicans."  Of  this  party,  Mr.  Jefferson  had  become  the 
leader.  Mr.  Hamilton,  the  author  of  the  leading  measures  of  the  admin- 
istration, was  considered  the  head  of  the  other. 

The  asperity  of  the  parties  had  been  greatly  sharpened  by  the  personal 
enmity  known  to  subsist  between  their  respective  leaders.  This  enmity 
has  been  attributed  to  several  causes.  These  gentlemen  differed  widely 
in  their  views  of  government.  Mr.  Jefferson's  regard  for  popular  rights 
is  well  known.  His  jealousy  of  the  encroachments  of  power  was  perhaps 
indulged  to  an  extreme.  The  correctness  of  the  following  portraiture 
of  these  two  political  champions,  drawn  by  Hildreth,  will  probably  be 
generally  admitted. 

"  Jefferson  had  returned  from  France,  strengthened  and  confirmed  by 
his  residence  and  associations  there,  in  those  theoretical  ideas  of  liberty 
and  equality  to  which  he  had  given  utterance  in  the  declaration  of  inde- 


96  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

pendence.  During  his  residence  in  Europe,  as  well  as  pending  the 
revolutionary  struggle,  his  attention  seems  to  have  been  almost  exclu- 
sively directed  toward  abuses  of  power.  Hence  his  political  philosophy 
was  almost  entirely  negative — its  sum  total  seeming  to  be  the  reduction 
of  the  exercise  of  authority  within  the  narrowest  possible  limits,  even  at 
the  risk  of  depriving  government  of  its  ability  for  good  as  well  as  for 
evil ;  a  theory  extremely  well  suited  to  place  him  at  the  head  of  those 
who,  for  various  reasons,  wished  to  restrict,  as  far  as  might  be,  the 
authority  of  the  new  federal  government. 

"  Though  himself  separated  from  the  mass  of  the  people,  by  elegance 
of  manners,  refined  taste,  and  especially  by  philosophical  opinions  on  the 
subject  of  religion,  in  political  affairs  Jefferson  was  disposed  to  allow  a 
controlling,  indeed  absolute  authority  to  the  popular  judo-ment.  The 
many  he  thought  to  be  always  more  honest  and  disinterested,  and  in 
questions  where  the  public  interests  were  concerned,  more  wise  than  the 
few,  who  might  always  be  suspected  of  having  private  purposes  to  serve. 
Hence  he  was  ever  ready  to  allow  even  his  most  cherished  principles  to 
drop  into  silence  the  moment  he  found  them  in  conflict  with  the  popular 
current.  To  sympathize  with  popular  passions,  seemed  to  be  his  test  of 
patriotism;  to  sail  before  the. wind  as  a  popular  favorite,  the  great 
object  of  his  ambition ;  and  it  was  under  the  character  of  a  condescend- 
ing friend  of  the  people  that  he  rose  first  at  the  head  of  a  party,  and  then 
the  chief  magistrate  of  the  nation." 

"  Much  less  of  a  scholar  or  a  speculatist  than  either  Jefferson  or  Adams, 
but  a  sagacious  observer  of  mankind,  and  possessed  of  practical  talents 
of  the  highest  order,  Hamilton's  theory  of  government  seems  to  have 
been  almost  entirely  founded  on  what  had  passed  under  his  own  observa- 
tion during  the  war  of  the  revolution,  and  subsequently,  previous  to  the 
adoption  of  the  new  constitution.  As  Washington's  confidential  aid-de- 
camp, and  as  a  member  of  the  continental  congress,  after  the  peace,  he 
had  become  very  strongly  impressed  with  the  impossibility  of  providing  for 
the  public  good,  especially  in  times  of  war  and  danger,  except  by  a  gov- 
ernment vested  with  ample  powers,  and  possessing  means  for  putting 
those  powers  into  vigorous  exercise.  To  give  due  strength  to  a  govern- 
ment, it  was  necessary,  in  his  opinion,  not  only  to  invest  it  on  paper  with 
sufficient  legal  authority,  but  to  attach  the  most  wealthy  and  influential 
part  of  the  community  to  it  by  the  ties  of  personal  and  pecuniary  advan- 
tage; for,  though  himself  remarkably  disinterested,  acting  under  the  exalted 
sense  of  personal  honor  and  patriotic  duty,  Hamilton  was  inclined,  like 
many  other  men  in  the  world,  to  ascribe  to  motives  of  pecuniary  and 
personal  interest  a  somewhat  greater  influence  than  they  actually  possess. 
Having  but  little  confidence  either  in  the  virtue  or  the  judgment  of  the 


DIFFERENCES    BETWEEN    JEFFERSON   AND    HAMILTON.  97 

mass  of  mankind,  he  thought  the  administration  of  affairs  most  safe  in 
the  hands  of  a  select  few.  Nor  in  private  conversation  did  he  disguise 
his  opinion  that,  to  save  her  liberties  from  attack  or  intestine  commo- 
tions, America  might  yet  be  driven  into  serious  alterations  of  her  consti- 
tution, giving  to  it  more  of  a  monarchical  and  aristocratical  cast.  He  had 
the  sagacity  to  perceive,  what  subsequent  experience  has  abundantly  con- 
firmed, that  the  union  had  rather  to  dread  resistance  of  the  states  to 
federal  power,  than  executive  usurpation  ;  but  he  was  certainly  mistaken 
in  supposing  that  a  president  and  senate  for  life,  or  good  behavior,  such 
as  he  had  suggested  in  the  federal  convention,  could  have  given  any  addi- 
tional strength  to  the  government.  That  strength,  under  all  elective 
systems,  must  depend  on  public  confidence ;  and  public  confidence  is  best 
tested  and  secured  by  frequent  appeals  to  the  popular  vote." 

Admitting  these  gentlemen  to  have  possessed  an  ordinary  share  of 
human  fallibility,  a  material  cause  of  their  mutual  hatred  might  be 
found  in  their  political  rivalry.  Identified  with  those  measures  which 
had  contributed  so  largely  to  the  popularity  of  the  administration,  Ham- 
ilton was  regarded  with  jealousy  by  other  aspirants.  Hence  the  dispo- 
sition to  disparage  these  measures,  and  to  asperse  their  supporters.  The 
funding  system,  the  assumption  of  the  state  debts,  the  excise,  and  the 
national  bank,  were  denounced  as  corrupt  attempts  to  gain  friends  to 
their  author,  and  as  intended  to  pave  the  way  toward  an  aristocracy  and  a 
monarchy.  And,  as  is  too  often  the  case  in  warm  political  controversies, 
the  most  patriotic  supporters  of  the  administration  were  accused  of 
having  been  drawn  into  the  interests  of  the  secretary,  by  the  hope  of  a 
participation  in  the  profits  of  the  trade  in  the  public  stocks  created  by 
his  policy.  Newspapers  enlisted  in  the  contest,  and  increased  the  viru- 
lence of  parties.  At  the  seat  of  government  (Philadelphia)  was  Fenno's 
United  States  Gazette,  the  special  organ  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury 
and  his  friends.  The  National  Gazette  was  the  medium  selected  by  the 
opposition,  or  rather  had  been  established  for  this  purpose,  and,  as  was 
alleged,  under  the  auspices  of  the  secretary  of  state ;  its  editor,  Philip 
Freneau,  a  Frenchman,  having  about  the  same  time  been  appointed 
translating  clerk  in  the  state  department. 

The  disagreement  between  the  heads  of  the  state  and  treasury  depart- 
ments had  acquired  such  magnitude,  and  had  so  great  an  influence  in 
widening  the  division  of  parties,  as  to  deserve  notice  in  this  place. 

Gen.  Washington,  having  intimated  an  intention  not  to  be  a  candidate 

for  reelection,  was  urged  by  numerous  friends  to  consent  to  serve  a 

second  term.     Having,  after  the  close  of  the  session  of  congress,  retired 

to  Mt.  Vernon,  for  temporary  relief  from  the  cares  of  public  business, 

Mr.  Jefferson  addressed  him  a  letter,  soliciting  him  to  relinquish  his 

7 


98  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

intention  to  retire ;  assigning  as  a  reason  the  divided  state  of  the  public 
mind  in  relation  to  the  policy  of  his  administration.  The  letter  mentions 
several  causes  of  dissatisfaction  among  the  people.  The  public  debt  was 
alleged  to  be  greater  than  was  necessary,  a  part  of  it  having  been  "  arti- 
ficially created,"  in  consequence  of  which  "  we  have  been  already  obliged," 
he  said,  "  to  strain  the  impost  till  it  produces  clamor,  and  will  produce 
evasion,  and  war  on  our  citizens  to  collect  it,  and  even  to  resort  to  an 
excise  law,  of  odious  character  with  the  people,  partial  in  its  operation, 
and  unproductive,  unless  enforced  by  arbitrary  and  vexatious  means." 

The  people  complained  also  that  so  much  of  the  public  debt  had 
"  been  made  irredeemable,  but  in  small  portions,  and  in  long  terms." 
But  for  this,  it  might  be  paid  in  two-thirds  of  the  time.  "  This  irre- 
deemable quality  was  given  to  it  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  inviting  its 
transfer  to  foreign  countries,"  whither  three  millions  of  dollars  of  coin 
must  be  annually  transported  to  pay  interest.  "  They  think  that  the 
ten  or  twelve  per  cent,  annual  profits  paid  to  the  lenders  of  this  paper 
medium,  are  taken  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  people,  who  would  have  had 
without  interest  the  coin  it  is  banishing  ;  that  all  the  capital  employed 
in  paper  speculation  is  barren  and  useless,  and  is  withdrawn  from  com- 
merce and  agriculture,  where  it  would  have  produced  an  addition  to  the 
common  mass ;  that  it  nourishes  in  our  citizens  habits  of  vice  and  idle- 
ness, instead  of  industry  and  morality ;  that  it  has  furnished  effectual 
means  of  corrupting  such  a  portion  of  the  legislature  as  turns  the  balance 
between  the  honest  voters,  whichever  way  it  is  directed  ;  that  this  corrupt 
squadron  deciding  the  voice  of  the  legislature,  have  manifested  their  dis- 
position to  get  rid  of  the  limitations  imposed  by  the  constitution  on  the 
general  legislature,  limitations  on  the  faith  of  which  the  states  acceded 
to  that  instrument ;  that  the  ultimate  object  of  all  this  is  to  prepare  the 
way  for  a  change  from  the  present  republican  form  of  government  to 
that  of  a  monarchy,  of  which  the  English  constitution  is  to  be  the 
model.  / 

"  Of  all  the  mischiefs  objected  to  the  system  of  measures  before  men- 
tioned, none  is  so  afflicting  and  fatal  to  every  honest  hope,  as  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  legislature.  As  it  was  the  earliest  of  these  measures,  it 
became  the  instrument  for  producing  the  rest,  and  will  be  the  instrument 
for  producing  in  future  a  king,  lords,  and  commons,  or  whatever  else 
those  who  direct  it  may  choose. 

"  The  only  hope  of  safety  hangs  now  on  the  numerous  representation 
which  is  to  come  forward  the  ensuing  year.  Some  of  the  new  members 
will  probably  be  either  in  principle  or  interest  with  the  present  majority. 
But  it  is  expected  that  the  great  mass  will  form  an  accession  to  the 
republican  party.     *     *     «     But  should  the  majority  of  the  new  mem« 


DIFFERENCES    BETWEEN    JEFFERSON   AND    HAMILTON,  99 

bers  be  still  in  the  same  principles  witli  the  present,  and  show  that  we 
have  nothing  to  expect  but  a  continuance  of  the  same  practices,  it  is  not 
easy  to  conjecture  what  would  be  the  result,  nor  what  means  would  be 
resorted  to  for  a  correction  of  the  evil.  True  wisdom  would  direct  that 
they  should  be  temperate  and  peaceable.  But  the  division  of  sentiment 
and  interest  happens  unfortunately  to  be  so  geographical,  that  no  mortal 
can  say  that  what  is  most  wise  and  temperate  would  prevail  against  what 
is  more  easy  and  obvious. 

"  I  can  scarcely  contemplate  a  more  incalculable  evil  than  the  break- 
ing of  the  union  into  two  or  more  parts.  Yet  when  we  review  the  mass 
that  opposed  the  original  coalescence ;  when  we  consider  that  it  lay 
chiefly  in  the  southern  quarter ;  that  the  legislature  have  availed  them- 
selves of  no  occasion  of  allaying  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  whenever  northern 
or  southern  prejudices  have  come  in  conflict,  the  latter  have  been  sacri- 
ficed and  the  former  soothed ;  that  the  owners  of  the  debt  are  in  the 
southern,  and  the  holders  of  it  in  the  northern  division ;  that  the  anti- 
federal  champions  are  now  strengthened  in  argument  by  the  fulfillment 
of  the\r  predictions ;  that  this  has  been  brought  about  by  the  monarchi- 
cal federalists  themselves,  who,  having  been  for  the  new  government 
merely  as  a  stepping-stone  to  monarchy,  have  themselves  adopted  the 
very  constructions  of  the  constitution,  of  which,  when  advocating  it 
before  the  people,  they  declared  it  insusceptible ;  that  the  republican 
federalists,  who  espoused  the  same  government  from  its  intrinsic  merits, 
are  disarmed  of  their  weapons — that  which  they  denied  as  prophecy  hav- 
ing become  true  as  history — ^who  can  be  sure  that  these  things  may  not 
proselyte  the  small  number  which  was  wanting  to  place  the  majority  on 
the  other  side  ?  And  this  is  the  event  at  which  I  tremble,  and  to  pre- 
vent which  I  consider  your  continuance  at  the  head  of  affairs  as  of  the 
last  importance." 

The  opponents  of  Mr.  Jefferson  regarded  this  letter  as  designed  to 
influence  the  mind  of  Washington  against  the  original  friends  of  the 
constitution,  who  were  now  generally  the  supporters  of  the  administra- 
tion. Whatever  were  the  motives  which  dictated  it,  it  failed  to  effect 
the  object  imputed  to  the  writer,  as  is  evident  from  a  subsequent  conver- 
sation with  Washington,  as  related  by  Mr.  Jefferson  himself.  He  repre- 
sents Watohington  as  having  said,  "  that,  with  respect  to  the  existing  causes 
of  uneasiness,  he  thought  there  were  suspicions  against  a  particular  party 
which  had  been  carried  a  great  deal  too  far.  There  might  be  desires, 
but  he  did  not  believe  there  were  designs,  to  change  the  form  of  govern- 
ment into  a  monarchy.  There  might  be  a  few  who  wished  it  in  the 
higher  walks  of  life,  particularly  in  the  great  cities,  but  the  main  body 
of  the  people  in  the  eastern  states  were  as  steady  for  republicanism  as  in 


100  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN, 

the  soutliern.  Pieces  lately  published,  and  particularly  in  Freneau's 
paper,  seemed  to  have  in  view  the  exciting  opposition  to  the  government^ 
and  this  had  already  taken  place  in  Pennsylvania  as  to  the  excise  law. 
These  pieces  tended  to  produce  a  separation  of  the  union,  the  most 
dreadful  of  all  calamities :  and  whatever  tended  to  produce  anarchy, 
tended,  of  course,  to  produce  a  resort  to  monarchical  government.  He 
considered  these  papers  as  attacking  him  directly,  for  he  must  be  fool 
indeed  to  swallow  the  little  sugar-plums  here  and  there  thrown  out  to 
him.  In  condemning  the  administration  of  the  government,  they  con- 
demned him ;  for  if  they  thought  that  measures-were  pursued  contrary  to 
his  judgment,  they  must  consider  him  too  careless  to  attend  to,  or  too 
stupid  to  understand  them.  He  had,  indeed,  signed  many  acts  which  he 
did  not  approve  in  all  their  parts,  but  he  had  never  put  his  name  to  one 
which  he  did  not  think  eligible  on  the  whole. 

"  As  to  the  bank  which  had  been  the  subject  of  so  much  complaint^ 
until  there  was  some  infallible  criterion  of  reason,  differences  of  opinion 
must  be  tolerated.  He  did  not  believe  that  the  discontent  extended  far 
from  the  seat  of  government.  He  had  seen  and  spoken  with  many  in 
Maryland  and  Virginia  during  his  last  journey,  and  had  found  the 
people  contented  and  happy.  He  defended  the  assumption  of  the  state 
debts  on  the  ground  that  it  had  not  increased  the  total  amount  to  be 
paid.  All  of  it  was  honest  debt,  and,  whether  paid  by  the  s1;ates  indi- 
vidually, or  by  the  union,  it  was  still  alike  a  burden  on  the  people.  The 
excise  he  defended  as  one  of  the  best  laws  that  could  be  passed,  nobody 
being  obliged  to  pay  who  did  not  elect  to  do  so." 

Mr.  Hamilton,  who  also  urged  Washington  not  to  decline,  wrote  to 
him  while  on  a  subsequent  visit  to  Mt.  Vernon,  as  follows :  "  It  ia 
clear,  says  every  one  with  whom  I  have  conversed,  that  the  affairs  of 
the  national  government  are  not  yet  firmly  established  ;  that  its  enemies, 
generally  speaking,  are  as  inveterate  as  ever ;  that  their  enmity  has  been 
sharpened  by  its  success,  and  by  all  the  resentments  which  flow  from 
disappointed  predictions  and  mortified  vanity ;  that  a  general  and  stren- 
uous effort  is  making  in  every  state  to  place  the  administration  of  it  into 
the  hands  of  its  enemies,  as  if  they  were  its  safest  guardians ;  that  the 
period  of  the  next  house  of  representatives  is  to  prove  the  crisis  of  its  per- 
manent character ;  that  if  you  continue  in  office,  nothing  materially  mis- 
chievous is  to  be  apprehended ;  if  you  quit,  much  is  to  be  dreaded  ;  that 
the  same  motives  which  induced  you  to  accept  originally,  ought  to  induce 
yoTi  to  continue  till  matters  have  assumed  a  more  determinate  aspect ; 
that,  indeed,  it  would  have  been  better  for  your  own  character  that  you 
had  never  consented  to  come  forward,  than  now  to  leave  the  business  un- 
finished, and  in  danger  of  being  undone ;  that,  in  the  event  of  storms 


DIFFERENCES    BETWEEN    JEFFERSON   AND    HAMILTON.  10 1 

arising,  there  would  be  an  imputation  either  of  a  want  of  foresight,  or 
a  want  of  firmness  ;  and  in  fine,  that  on  public  and  personal  accounts,  on 
patriotic  and  prudential  considerations,  the  clear  pathUd  5)o]pursued  by 
you  will  be  again  to  obey  the  voice  of  your  country,  which,' it  "is  not 
doubted,  will  be  as  earnest  and  unanimous  as  ever.'^  ' 

Mr.  Randolph,  the  attorney-general,  who  also  wrote  to  iiie  president 
on  the  same  subject,  seems  not  to  have  taken  a  side  with  either  party. 
He  says  :  "  It  can  not  have  escaped  you,  that  divisions  are  formed  in  our 
politics  as  systematic  as  those  which  prevail  in  Great  Britain.  Such  as 
opposed  the  constitution  from  a  hatred  to  the  union,  can  never  be  con- 
ciliated by  any  overture  or  atonement.  By  others  it  is  meditated  to 
push  the  construction  of  the  federal  powers  to  every  tenable  extreme. 
A  third  class,  republican  in  principle,  and  thus  far,  in  my  judgment, 
happy  in  their  discernment  of  our  welfare,  have,  notwithstanding, 
mingled  with  their  doctrines  a  fatal  error,  that  the  state  assemblies  are 
to  be  resorted  to  as  the  engines  of  correction  to  the  federal  administra- 
tion. The  honors  belonging  to  the  chief  magistracy,  are  objects  of  no 
common  solicitude  to  a  few  who  compose  a  fourth  denomination."  After 
speaking  of  the  tendency  of  these  divisions,  he  says :  "  In  this  threaten- 
ing posture  of  affairs,  we  must  gain  time,  for  the  purpose  of  attracting 
confidence  to  the  government,  by  an  experience  of  its  benefits,  and  that 
name  alone,  whose  patronage  secured  the  adoption  of  the  constitution, 
can  check  the  assaults  which  it  will  sustain  at  the  two  next  sessions  of 
congress." 

About  this  time,  a  personal  newspaper  controversy  occurred,  in  which 
the  resentments  of  the  parties  were  freely  uttered.  The  frequent  attacks 
in  Freneau's  paper  upon  the  financial  measures  of  the  administration, 
at  length  drew  from  Mr.  Hamilton  a  severe  newspaper  article,  signed 
"  An  American,"  in  which  he  represented  that  paper  as  having  been 
established  under  the  auspices  and  for  the  special  use  of  the  secretary 
of  state,  and  charged  him  with  the  impropriety  of  holding  office  in  the 
administration,  while  conducting  a  warfare  against  measures  which  had 
received  the  approval  of  both  branches  of  the  legislature  and  of  the  exe- 
cutive. Freneau,  in  reply,  denied  Mr.  Jefferson's  having  been  concerned 
in  the  establishment  or  conduct  of  the  paper,  or  his  having  even  written 
for  it.  Several  articles  followed  on  both  sides  before  this  newspaper  war 
terminated. 

Washington,  pained  at  this  quarrel  between  his  secretaries,  endeavored, 
though  in  vain,  to  effect  a  reconciliation.  In  a  letter  of  the  23d  of 
August,  addressed  to  the  secretary  of  st^^te,  he  wrote  thus  :  "  How  un- 
fortunate and  how  much  is  it  to  be  regretted,  then,  that  while  we  are 
encompassed  on  all  sides  with  avowed  enemies  and  insidious    friends," 


102  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

(alluding  to  alleged  British  and  Spanish  intrigues  with  the  Indians,) 
"  internal  dissensions  should  be  harrowing  and  tearing  out  our  vitals. 
The  last^^  to, me,  is  the  most  serious,  the  most  alarming,  and  the  most 
afflicting -of  the -two;  and  without  more  charity  for  the  opinions  of  one 
.a^iolshvsi',  in  gov.ta*nmental  matters,  or  some  more  infallible  criterion  than 
4as  -yet  fallen  to  the  lot  of  humanity,  by  which  the  truth  of  speculative 
opinions,  before  they  have  undergone  the  test  of  experience,  is  to  be  fore- 
judged, I  believe  it  will  be  difficult,  if  not  impracticable,  to  keep  the 
parts  of  it  together ;  for  if,  instead  of  laying  our  shoulders  to  the 
machine  after  measures  are  decided  on,  one  pulls  this  way  and  another 
that,  before  the  utility  of  the  thing  is  fairly  tried,  it  must  inevitably  be 
torn  asunder ;  and,  in  my  opinion,  the  fairest  prospect  of  happiness  and 
prosperity  that  ever  was  presented  to  man^  will  be  lost  perhaps  for  ever. 

''  My  earnest  wish,  and  my  fondest  hope,  therefore,  is,  that  instead  of 
wounding  suspicions  and  irritating  charges,  there  may  be  liberal  allow- 
ances, mutual  forbearances,  and  temporizing  yielding  on  all  sides. 
Under  the  exercise  of  these,  matters  will  go  on  smoothly,  and,  if  possible, 
more  prosperously.  Without  them,  every  thing  must  rub ;  the  wheels 
of  government  must  clog ;  our  enemies  will  triumph,  and,  by  throwing 
their  weight  into  the  disaffected  scale,  may  accomplish  the  ruin  of  the 
goodly  fabric  we  have  been  erecting. 

"  I  do  not  mean  to  apply  this  advice  or  these  observations  to  any  par- 
ticular person  or  character.  I  have  given  them  in  the  same  general 
terms  to  other  officers  of  the  government,  because  the  disagreements 
which  have  arisen  from  difference  of  opinions,  and  the  attacks  which 
have  been  made  upon  almost  all  the  measures  of  government,  and 
most  of  its  executive  officers,  have  for  a  long  time  past  filled  me  with 
painful  sensations,  and  can  not  fail,  I  think,  of  producing  unhappy  con- 
sequences at  home  and  abroad." 

A  similar  letter  to  Hamilton,  and  another  to  Jefferson  were  sub- 
sequently written.  In  the  last  he  says  :  "  I  will  solemnly  and  frankly 
declare,  that  I  believe  the  views  of  both  to  be  pure  and  well  meant,  and 
that  experience  only  will  decide  with  respect  to  the  salubrity  of  the 
measures  which  are  the  subjects  of  this  dispute.  *  *  *  I  have  a  great, 
a  sincere  esteem  and  regard  for  you  both ;  and  ardently  wish  that  some 
line  could  be  marked  out  by  which  both  of  you  could  walk." 

To  these  letters  of  the  president,  answers  in  justification  of  their 
conduct  were  returned  by  both  of  the  secretaries.  The  character  of 
these  answers  will  be  seen  from  the  following  extracts. 

"  It  is  my  most  anxious  wish,"  said  Hamilton,  "  as  far  as  may  depend 
upon  me,  to  smooth  the  path  of  your  administration,  and  to  render  it 
prosperous  and  happy.     And  if  any  prospect  shall  open  of  healing  or 


DIFFERENCES    BETWEEN   JEFFERSON    AND    HAMILTON.  103 

terminating  the  differences  which  exist,  I  shall  most  cheerfully  embrace 
it,  though  I  consider  myself  as  the  deeply  injured  party.  The  recom- 
mendation of  such  a  spirit  is  worthy  of  the  moderation  and  wisdom 
which  dictated  it ;  and  if  your  endeavors  should  prove  unsuccessful,  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  in  my  opinion,  the  period  is  not  remote  when 
the  public  good  will  require  substitutes  for  the  differing  members  of  your 
administration.  The  continuance  of  a  division  there  must  destroy  the 
energy  of  government,  which  will  be  little  enough  with  the  strictest 
union.  On  my  part,  there  will  be  a  most  cheerful  acquiescence  in  such 
a  result.  *  *  *  I  can  not  conceal  from  you,  that  I  have  had  some  instru- 
mentality of  late  in  the  retaliations  which  have  fallen  upon  certain  public 
characters,  and  that  I  find  myself  placed  in  a  situation  not  to  be  able  to 
recede  for  the  present. 

"  I  considered  myself  compelled  to  this  conduct  by  reasons  public  as 
well  as  personal,  of  the  most  cogent  nature.  I  know  that  I  have  been 
an  object  of  uniform  opposition  from  Mr.  Jefferson  from  the  momenVof 
his  coming  to  New  York  to  enter  on  his  present  ofl&ce.  I  know  from  the 
most  authentic  sources,  that  I  have  been  the  frequent  subject  of  the  most 
unkind  whispers  and  insinuations  from  the  same  quarter.  I  have  long 
seen  a  formed  party  in  the  legislature,  under  his  auspices,  bent  upon  my 
subversion.  I  can  not  doubt,  from  the  evidence  I  possess,  that  the 
National  Grazette  was  instituted  by  him  for  political  purposes,  and  that 
one  leading  object  of  it  has  been  to  render  me  and  all  the  leading  meas- 
ures connected  with  my  department,  as  odious  as  possible. 

"  As  long  as  I  saw  no  danger  to  the  government  from  the  machina- 
tions that  were  going  on,  I  resolved  to  be  a  silent  sufferer  of  the  injuries 
that  were  done  me.  *  *  *  But  when  I  no  longer  doubted  that  there  was 
a  formed  party  deliberately  bent  upon  a  subversion  of  the  measures 
which,  in  its  consequence,  would  subvert  the  government ;  when  I  saw 
that  the  undoing  of  the  funding  system  in  particular  was  an  avowed 
object  of  the  party,  which,  whatever  may  be  the.  original  merits  of  that 
system,  would  prostrate  the  credit  and  honor  of  the  nation,  and  bring 
the  government  into  contempt  wi^h  that  description  of  men  who  are  in 
every  society  the  only  firm  supporters  of  government,  and  that  all  possi- 
ble pains  were  taking  to  produce  that  effect,  by  rendering  the  funding 
system  odious  to  the  body  of  the  people ;  I  considered  it  as  a  duty  to 
endeavor  to  resist  the  torrent,  and  as  an  effectual  means  to  that  end,  to 
draw  aside  the  veil  from  the  principal  actors.  To  this  strong  impulse,  to 
this  decided  conviction,  I  have  yielded ;  and  I  think  events  will  prove 
that  I  have  judged  rightly.  Nevertheless,  I  pledge  my  honor  to  you, 
sir,  that  if  you  shall  hereafter  form  a  plan  to  reunite  the  members  of 
your  administration  upon  some  steady  principle  of  cooperation,  I  will 


104  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

faithfully  concur  in  executing  it  during  my  continuance  in  office ;  and  I 
will  not,  directly  or  indirectly,  say  or  do  a  thing  that  will  endanger  a 
feud." 

Jefferson,  in  his  letter,  says  :  "  When  I  embarked  in  the  government^ 
it  was  with  a  determination  to  intermeddle  not  at  all  with  the  legislature, 
and  as  little  as  possible  with  the  co-departments.  *  *  *  If  it  has  been 
supposed  that  I  have  ever  intrigued  among  the  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture to  defeat  the  plans  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  it  is  contrary 
to  all  truth.  That  I  have  utterly,  in  my  private  conversations,  disap- 
proved of  his  system,  I  acknowledge  and  avow  :  and  this  was  not  merely 
a  speculative  difference.  His  system  flowed  from  principles  adverse  to 
liberty,  and  was  calculated  to  undermine  and  demolish  the  republic,  by 
creating  an  influence  in  his  department  over  the  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture. I  saw  this  influence  actually  produced,  and  its  first  fruits  to  be 
the  establishment  of  the  great  outlines  of  his  project  by  the  votes  of  the 
very  persons  who,  having  swallowed  his  bait,  were  laying  themselves  out 
to  profit  by  his  plans ;  and  that,  had  these  persons  withdrawn,  as  those 
interested  in  a  question  ever  should,  the  vote  of  the  disinterested  majority 
was  clearly  the  reverse  of  what  they  made  it.  These  were  no  longer, 
then,  the  votes  of  the  representatives  of  the  people,  but  of  deserters 
from  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  people ;  and  it  was  impossible  to 
consider  their  decision,  which  had  nothing  in  view  but  to  enrich  them- 
selves, as  the  measures  of  the  fair  majority,  which  ought  always  to  be  re- 
spected. 

"  If  what  was  actually  done  begat  uneasiness  in  those  who  wished  for 
virtuous  government,  what  was  farther  proposed  was  not  less  threatening 
to  the  friends  of  the  constitution.  For,  in  a  report  on  the  subject  of 
manufactures,  (still  to  be  acted  on,)  it  was  expressly  assumed,  that  the 
general  government  has  a  right  to  exercise  all  powers  which  may  be  for 
the  general  welfare ;  that  is  to  say,  all  the  legitimate  powers  of  govern- 
ment, since  no  government  has  a  right  to  do  what  is  not  for  the  welfare 
of  the  governed.  There  was,  indeed,  a  sham  limitation  of  the  universal- 
ity of  this  power  to  cases  where  money  is  to  be  employed.  But  about 
what  is  it  that  money  can  not  be  employed  ?  Thus  the  object  of  these 
plans,  taken  together,  is  to  draw  all  the  powers  of  government'  into  the 
hands  of  the  general  legislature,  to  establish  means  of  corrupting  a 
sufficient  corps  in  that  legislature  to  divide  the  honest  votes,  and  prepon- 
derate by  their  own  the  scale  which  suited,  and  to  have  that  corps  under 
the  command  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  for  the  purpose  of  sub- 
verting, step  by  step,  the  principles  of  the  constitution,  which  he  has  so 
often  declared  a  thing  of  nothing,  which  must  be  changed." 

The  reason  assigned  by  the  secretary  of  state  for  his  patronizing  the 


DIFFERENCES   BETWEEN   JEFFERSON    AND    HAMILTON.  105 

National  Gazette,  was  a  desire  to  present  to  the  public  European  intelli- 
gence taken  from  the  Lejden  Gazette,  instead  of  the  English  papers, 
the  latter  being  considered  as  not  giving  a  correct  view  of  foreign  affairs, 
especially  of  those  of  France,  where  the  revolution  was  then  in  progress. 
He  disclaimed  having  written  or  dictated  any  thing  unofficial  to  be  in- 
serted in  Freneau's  paper.  He  had  simply  furnished  the  editor  with 
the  Leyden  Gazette,  and  requested  him  to  translate  and  publish  articles 
from  the  same.  Any  recommendations  which  he  might  ha,ve  given  the 
paper,  had  no  respect  to  its  opposition  to  the  measures  of  the  govern- 
ment, but  to  the  ground  it  took  against  the  aristocratical  and  monarchical 
doctrines  of  writers  in  other  papers. 

We  have  devoted  considerable  space  to  this  cabinet  controversy,  which 
occurred  in  an  important  period  of  the  history  of  our  government,  and 
which,  from  its  influence  upon  the  future  politics  of  the  nation,  has  not 
yet  become  devoid  of  interest.  Although  the  parties  of  that  day  have 
long  ago  ceased  to  exist,  public  sentiment  in  regard  to  the  early  policy 
of  the  government  is  still  to  some  extent  divided ;  and  the  two  original 
leaders  of  those  parties  have  yet  their  admirers.  Of  their  relative  mer- 
its or  demerits,  it  is  hardly  safe  at  this  remote  period  to  express  an 
opinion.  To  both  must  be  conceded  a  large  measure  of  patriotism,  and 
the  honor  of  having  rendered  important  public  services.  As  is  usual  in 
times  of  political  excitement,  the  characters,  private  and  official,  of  both, 
were  often  unjustly  assailed,  and  their  public  acts,  as  well  as  the  motives 
that  prompted  them,  misjudged.  Not  only  the  newspapers,  but  pamph- 
lets almost  without  number,  many  of  which  are  yet  extant,  were  employed 
in  this  party  war.  Abounding  with  the  most  fulsome  praise  on  one  side, 
and  malicious  disparagement  on  the  other,  they  are  unreliable  sources  of 
information,  and  serve  little  purpose  other  than  to  show  the  character  of 
the  warfare  which  they  were  instrumental  in  promoting. 

We  can  not  be  persuaded  to  believe  the  existence  of  the  alleged  con- 
spiracy against  republican  liberty,  or  of  the  corruption  or  subserviency 
of  a  majority  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature  ;  yet  it  is  not  incredible 
that  a  man  so  extremely  jealous  of  encroachments  upon  popular  rights 
as  Mr.  Jefl"erson,  should  indulge  in  unjust  suspicions  toward  a  political 
rival  and  his  supporters.  We  are  equally  slow  to  believe,  that  the  bene- 
fits of  Mr.  Hamilton's  financial  policy  were  not  in  some  measure  over- 
rated. The  general  industry  and  the  restoration  of  commerce,  doubtless 
contributed  much  to  raise  the  country  from  the  depressed  condition  to 
which  it  had  been  reduced  by  the  war. 

The  act  imposing  a  duty  on  distilled  spirits,  unacceptable  in  several 
parts  of  the  union,  was  extremely  obnoxious  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 
western  counties  of  Pennsylvania.     Meetings  in  which  some  of  the  most 


106 


THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


influential  citizens  took  a  leading  part,  were  held  at  Pittsburg  and  other 
places  ;  and  resolutions  were  adopted  tending  to  increase  the  discontent, 
and  encouraging  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  law.  It  was  this 
organized  opposition  to  the  excise  law  that  had  induced  congress,  before 
its  adjournment,  to  pass  the  act  authorizing  the  president  to  call  out  the 
militia  to  aid  in  enforcing  the  laws.  Various  measures — as  declaring 
infamous  all  excise  collectors — threatening  to  destroy  property  and  life, 
personal  violence  and  the  like — were  resorted  to  in  order  to  deter  persons 
from  assisting  to  execute  the  law. 

Eeluctant  to  employ  military  force,  the  president  issued  a  proclama- 
tion, exhorting  all  persons  to  desist  from  any  proceedings  tending  to 
obstruct  the  execution  of  the  laws,  and  requiring  the  aid  of  the  magis- 
trates to  bring  the  offenders  to  justice.  But  the  proclamation  was  inef- 
fectual. Many  of  the  magistrates,  instead  of  aiding  to  maintain  the 
laws,  encouraged  resistance  to  them.  This  spirit  of  rebellion  found 
additional  encouragement  in  the  sympathies  of  a  powerful  political  party 
which  had  arrayed  itself  against  the  administration,  and  which  had 
labored  to  make  this  a  special  object  of  public  odium.  This  opposition 
to  the  laws  continued  until  the  summer  of  1794.  Other  means  of 
securing  obedience  to  the  law  having  failed,  and  the  insurrection  having 
assumed  an  alarming  aspect,  a  strong  military  force  was  raised,  consisting 
of  15,000  men,  and  the  insurrection  quelled,  almost  without  bloodshed. 

The  presidential  election  which  occurred  this  year,  (1792,)  resulted 
in  the  unanimous  reelection  of  Gen.  Washington.  Mr.  Adams  also  was 
reelected  vice-president,  having  received  77  votes,  and  Greorge  Clinton 
50,  the  latter  being  the  candidate  of  the  opposition  party.  Mr.  Adams 
received  all  the  votes  of  the  five  New  England  states,  New  Jersey,  Dela- 
ware, Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  and  South  Carolina,  except  one  vote  of 
Pennsylvania,  given  for  Clinton,  and  one  of  South  Carolina  for  Burr. 
Mr.  Jefferson  received  the  votes  of  the  Kentucky  electors. 

Congress  assembled  on  the  5th  of  November.  Among  the  subjects 
to  which  attention  was  called  by  the  president,  were  the  continued  hos- 
tility of  the  Indians,  and  the  increased  opposition  to  the  collection  of 
the  duty  on  distilled  spirits.  In  relation  to  the  public  debt,  he  said ; 
"  I  entertain  a  strong  hope  that  the  state  of  the  national  finances  is  now 
sufficiently  matured  to  enable  you  to  enter  upon  a  systematic  and  effect- 
ual arrangement  for  the  regular  redemption  and  discharge  of  the  public 
debt,  according  to  the  right  which  has  been  reserved  to  the  government. 
No  measure  can  be  more  desirable,  whether  viewed  with  an  eye  to  its 
intrinsic  importance,  or  to  the  general  sentiments  and  wish  of  the  nation." 

In  answer  to  the  president's  speech,  the  two  houses  expressed  their 
approval  of  the  measures  he  had  adopted,  and  of  his  determination  to 


CHARGES    MADE    AGAINST    SECRETARY   HAMILTON.  107 

compel  obedience  to  the  laws ;  and  the  house,  whose  attention  particu- 
larly he  had  called  to  the  subject  of  the  public  debt,  responded  favorably 
to  the  recommendation.  But  when  a  motion  was  made  to  enter  upon 
that  measure,  and  to  call  upon  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  to  report  a 
plan  for  that  purpose,  it  met  with  a  strong  opposition.  It  was  objected, 
that  the  house  had  not  yet  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  state  of  the 
finances.  The  proposed  reference  of  the  subject  to  the  secretary  of  the 
treasury  was  most  vigorously  opposed ;  but  after  several  days'  debate  it 
was  carried,  32  to  25.  A  plan  was  accordingly  reported  by  the  secre- 
tary, in  which,  anticipating  an  increase  of  expenditures  on  account  of 
the  Indian  war,  a  slight  addition  to  the  revenue  was  proposed,  by  im- 
posing a  tax  on  pleasure-horses  or  pleasure-carriages,  at  the  option  of 
congress. 

Several  causes  conspiring  to  produce  delay,  no  definitive  action  was 
taken  upon  the  subject  at  this  session.  One  of  these  causes  was  an 
inquiry  instituted  by  the  house  into  the  official  conduct  of  the  secretary 
of  the  treasury,  who  was  suspected  of  corrupt. transactions  in  the  manage- 
ment of  the  finances.  On  motion  of  Mr.  Giles,  of  Virginia,  the  presi- 
dent was  called  on  for  information  in  regard  to  the  borrowing  of  certain 
moneys  authorized  by  law,  and  the  manner  of  their  application.  This 
call  was  promptly  answered  by  the  secretary.  A  second  call  was  then 
moved  for  information  respecting  several  otker  particulars  not  embraced 
in  the  first.  In  support  of  the  call,  Mr.  Giles  specified  sundry  unwar- 
rantable acts  of  the  secretary,  besides  his  failing  to  account  for  a  million 
and  a  half  of  dollars.  The  motion  was  agreed  to  without  debate.  The 
report  of  the  secretary  in  answer  to  the  call  was  full,  extending  to  every 
subject  of  inquiry  ;  and  concluded  as  follows :  "  Thus  have  I  not  only 
furnished  a  just  and  affirmative  view  of  the  real  situation  of  the  public 
accounts,  but  have  likewise  shown,  I  trust,  in  a  conspicuous  manner, 
fallacies  enough  in  the  statements  from  which  the  inference  of  an  unac- 
counted for  balance  is  drawn,  to  evince  that  it  is  one  tissue  of  error." 

The  charge  of  an  unaccounted  for  balance  was  abandoned,  but  Mr. 
Giles  and  his  coadjutors,  imagining  the  secretary's  statements  to  afford 
sufficient  grounds  for  a  vote  of  censure,  drew  up  a  series  of  resolutions, 
comprising  no  less  than  six  distinct  charges  against  the  secretary.  After 
a  debate  of  several  days,  the  criminating  resolutions  were  all  negatived. 
The  highest  number  of  votes  for  any  one  of  them  was  fifteen,  little 
more  than  half  the  strength  of  the  party,  and  for  the  others,  from  seven 
to  twelve  votes. 

An  act  was  passed  at  this  session  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of 
the  constitution  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  justice  and  from 
labor.     The  act  required  the  executive  of  a  state  in  which  a  person 


108  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

charged  with  crime  was  found,  on  demand  of  the  executive  of  the  state 
from  which  he  had  fled,  to  deliver  him  up  to  be  carried  back  for  trial ; 
such  demand  to  be  accompanied  by  an  indictment  or  affidavit  charging 
the  crime.  Persons  claimed  as  slaves,  might  be  seized  by  the  claimant, 
or  his  agent,  and  taken  before  a  United  States  judge,  or  a  state  magis- 
trate, who,  on  satisfactory  proof  that  the  person  seized  was  a  slave,  was 
required  to  give  a  warrant  for  his  return.  The  supreme  court  of  the 
United  States  having  subsequently  decided  that  congress  could  not  im- 
pose duties  upon  state  officers,  magistrates  were  by  law  forbidden  in 
many  of  the  free  states,  to  aid  in  carrying  the  a^ct  of  congress  into  effect. 

At  the  session  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  in  February, 
it  was  decided  that  a  state  was  suable  by  a  citizen  of  another  state.  A 
citizen  of  South  Carolina  had  brought  a  suit  against  the  state  of  Georgia. 
The  process  had  been  duly  served  upon  the  governor  and  the  attorney- 
general  of  the  state  ;  but  the  state  made  no  defense,  protesting  that  the 
court  had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case.  The  question  was  argued  by  the 
attorney-general  of  the  United  States,  who  appeared  for  the  plaintiff. 
The  jurisdiction  of  the  court  was  considered  as  clearly  sustained  by  the 
constitution,  which  declares  that  the  judicial  power  shall  extend  "  to 
controversies  between  a  state,  and  the  citizen  of  another  state."  The 
states  having  been  made  liable,  by  this  decision,  to  innumerable  suits, 
alarm  was  taken,  and  at  th«  next  session  of  congress  an  amendment  to 
the  constitution,  [being  the  11th  article  of  Amendments,]  was  proposed, 
which  declares  that  "the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  not  be 
construed  to  extend  to  any  suit  in  law  or  equity,  commenced  or  prose- 
cuted against  one  of  the  United  States  by  citizens  of  another  state,  or 
by  citizens  or  subjects  of  any  foreign  state ;"  and  the  same  was  after- 
wards ratified  by  the  states. 

With  the  3d  of  March,  1793,  closed  the  constitutional  term  of  the 
second  congress,  and  the  first  term  of  Washington's  administration. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

OPPOSITION    TO    THE    ADMINISTRATION. RELATIONS   WITH   FRANCE. PRO- 
CLAMATION   OF   NEUTRALITY. GENET,  THE    FRENCH   MINISTER. POLICY 

OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 

The  second  term  of  Washington's  administration  was  scarcely  less 
eventful  than  the  first.  The  internal  policy  of  the  government  had  been, 
as  we  have  seen,  established  against  a  powerful  opposition.    Scarcely  had 


OPPOSITION    TO    TELE    ADMIN ISTRAITON.  109 

the  ceremonies  of  the  second  inauguration  closed,  before  it  became  neces- 
sary to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  foreign  policy  which  was  destined  to  en- 
counter an  opposition  no  less  vigorous  and  determined. 

The  French  revolution  had  commenced  almost  simultaneously  with 
the  organization  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  under  the  new 
constitution.  Its  progress  was  watched  with  interest  by  the  American 
people,  whose  sympathies  were  very  naturally,  as  well  as  very  generally, 
enlisted  in  the  cause  of  their  old  ally,  by  whose  aid  their  own  independ- 
ence had  been  achieved.  Such,  however,  was  the  character  of  that  revo- 
lution as  to  inspire  strong  doubts  of  the  establishment  of  a  permanent 
government.  A  new  constitution  had  been  adopted,  to  which  the  king 
had  given  his  assent.  The  legislature  consisted  of  a  single  body,  called 
the  "  national  assembly."     The  crown  was  to  continue  hereditary. 

Soon  after,  the  king  was  suspected,  though  unjustly,  as  is  supposed,  of 
being  confederate  with  the  enemies  of  France.  On  the  10th  of  August, 
1792,  the  palace  of  the  Tuilleries  was  stormed,  and  the  royal  government 
subverted.  In  the  prisons  of  Paris  were  confined  large  numbers  of 
nobles,  ecclesiastics,  and  wealthy  citizens,  suspected  of  having  favored 
the  aristocratic  party.  The  Jacobin  demagogues,  bent  on  their  destruc- 
tion, caused  the  prisons  to  be  burst  open,  and  all  the  prisoners  to  be 
massacred.  The  number  thus  slain  in  two  days,  the  2d  and  3d  of  Sep- 
tember, was  estimated  at  five  thousand.  Greneral  La  Fayette,  whose  de- 
struction was  determined  on,  fled  the  country.  He  was  arrested  by  the 
Austrians  and  conveyed  to  the  prison  of  Olmutz,  where  he  suffered  a 
long  and  cruel  confinement,  until  released  through  the  interposition  of 
the  American  government. 

The  national  assembly  was  dissolved,  and  a  new  assembly,  called 
a"  convention,"  was  established, which  met  on  the  24th  of  September,  and 
by  which  the  abolition  of  monarchy  was  decreed,  and  France  declared  a 
REPUBLIC.  The  king  was  afterwards  brought  before  the  bar  of  the  con- 
vention for  trial,  without  any  previous  intimation  of  the  charges  against 
him,  and  declared  guilty  of  a  conspiracy  against  the  liberties  of  the 
nation.  He  was  executed  on  the  21st  of  January,  1793.  In  October 
following,  the  queen  also,  after  an  imprisonment  of  three  months  in  a 
dungeon,  was  tried  for  alleged  crimes  which  were  not  substantiated,  and 
publicly  executed. 

Louis  XVI  was  universally  known  as  an  amiable  prince.  His  friend- 
ship during  our  own  revolution  had  been  appreciated  by  the  American 
people ;  and  the  president  had  but  recently  communicated  to  congress  a 
letter  from  the  king,  announcing  his  assent  to  the  representative  govern- 
ment ;  and  the  house  had,  with  but  two  dissenting  voices,  congratulated 
the  French  people  on  this  auspicious  event.     In  view  of  these  facts,  in 


110  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

connection  witli  the  subsequent  wanton  sacrifice  of  the  king — the  char- 
acter of  the  revolutionists — their  imperfect  ideas  of  republican  govern- 
ment— it  would  not  have  been  strange  if  the  people  had  indulged  appre- 
hensions unfavorable  to  the  establishment  of  a  well  regulated  republican 
government,  nor  less  strange  still,  if  the  horrid  butcheries  under  the 
blood  thirsty  Robespierre  and  his  coadjutors,  the  abjuration  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  and  the  abolition  of  the  sabbath,  had  strengthened  these 
apprehensions. 

The  question  as  to  the  course  to  be  pursued  by  the  United  States 
toward  the  new  government  of  France,  was  to  be  settled.  Of  the  right 
or  propriety  of  recognizing  it,  there  could  hardly  be  a  doubt.  But  a 
combination  of  several  European  powers  had  been  formed  against 
France;  and  in  April,  1793,  a  formal  declaration  of  war  was  made  by 
France  against  Great  Britain  and  Holland.  A  large  portion  of  the 
American  people,  regarding  the  situation  of  France  as  similar  to  that  of 
the  United  States  in  their  contest  with  Great  Britain,  were  disposed  to 
reciprocate  the  favor  of  our  former  ally.  Although  sympathizing 
strongly  with  France,  the  president  desired  to  maintain  the  neutrality  of 
the  United  States.  But  before  deciding  upon  the  course  to  be  taken,  it 
was  necessary  to  determine  whether  it  was  consistent  with  our  treaties 
with  France.  By  a  stipulation  in  the  treaty  of  alliance  with  that  coun- 
try, the  United  States  were  expressly  bound  to  guaranty  the  French  pos- 
sessions in  America.  The  treaty  of  commerce  provided,  that  free  ships 
should  make  free  goods;  that  is,  instead  of  the  enemy's  goods  being 
subject  to  seizure  and  confiscation  on  board  neutral  vessels,  according  to 
the  law  of  nations,  such  goods  were  to  be  free  from  seizure. 

The  president  was  at  Mount  Yernon  when  intelligence  of  the  war  be- 
tween France  and  Great  Britain  reached  him.  Having  learned  that 
vessels  were  already  preparing  to  engage  in  privateering  on  the  commerce 
of  the  belligerent  powers,  he  addressed  letters  to  the  secretaries  of  state 
and  of  the  treasury,  requesting  them,  "  to  give  the  subject  mature  con- 
sideration," that,  on  his  return,  measures  might  be  adopted  without 
delay,  "  to  prevent  our  citizens  from  embroiling  us  with  either  of  those 
powers." 

On  the  18th  of  April,  1793,  the  day  after  his  return,  he  proposed  to 
the  members  of  his  cabinet,  a  scries  of  questions,  to  which  written 
answers  were  requested.  Among  these  questions  were  the  following : 
Shall  a  proclamation  issue  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  interferences  of 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States  in  the  war  between  France  and  Great 
Britain  ?  Shall  it  contain  a  declaration  or  not  ?  Shall  a  minister  from 
the  republic  of  France  be  received  ?  If  sO;  shall  it  be  absolutely,  or 
with  qualifications  ?     Are  the  United  States  obliged  by  good  faith  to 


RELATIONS  WITH  PRANCE.  Ill 

consider  the  treaties  with  France  as  applying  to  the  present  situation  of 
the  parties  ?  or  may  they  either  renounce  them,  or  suspend  them  until 
the  government  of  France  shall  be  established  ?  If  the  treaties  are  now 
in  operation,  is  the  guaranty  in  the  treaty  of  alliance  applicable  to  a  de- 
fensive war  only  ?  Ought  congress  to  be  assembled  with  a  view  to  the 
present  posture  of  European  affairs  ? 

'  The  members  were  unanimous  in  favor  of  a  proclamation  of  neutrality, 
and  of  receiving  a  minister.  The  secretaries  of  the  treasury  and  of  war, 
however,  advised  the  reception  with  a  qualification,  on  the  ground  of 
doubt,  whether  the  new  government  of  France  could  be  considered  as 
established  by  the  general  consent  of  the  nation.  The  secretary  of  state 
and  the  attorney-general,  thought  there  ought  to  be  no  departure  from 
the  usual  mode.  Nor  did  they  think  the  change  in  the  form  of  the 
French  government  absolved  the  United  States  from  the  obligations 
assumed  by  preexisting  treaties. 

The  secretaries  of  the  treasury  and  of  war,  admitted  the  right  of 
nations  to  change  their  form  of  government  at  pleasure  ;  but  they  held 
that,  when  a  change  in  the  internal  condition  of  a  state  is  such,  that  the 
other  party  to  the  alliance  can  not  render  the  promised  aid  without  en- 
dangering its  own  safety,  its  obligation  ceases.  Considering  the  means  by 
which  the  present  ruling  party  in  France  had  acquired  their  power,  there 
was  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  they  held  it  by  the  general  consent  of 
the  people,  or  that  the  present  government  would  be  permanent.  The 
horrid  and  unprovoked  massacres  perpetrated  by  the  Jacobin  clubs  at 
Paris,  and  the  gross  injustice  of  the  leading  acts  of  the  revolutionists, 
had  drawn  against  the  republic  such  an  immense  armed  force,  as  to 
render  a  continuance  of  the  alliance,  in  consequence  of  this  new  state 
of  things,  dangerous  to  the  safety  of  the  United  States.  In  their  opinion, 
however,  the  government,  instead  of  annulling  or  totally  suspending  the 
treaties,  should  reserve  for  future  consideration  the  question,  whether 
their  operation  ought  not  to  be  temporarily  and  provisionally  suspended  ; 
and  if  this  should  be  the  determination  of  the  government,  the  expected 
minister  ought  to  be  in  conciliatory  terms  apprised  of  the  same. 

These  two  secretaries  held,  also,  that  the  clause  of  guaranty  applied 
only  to  a  defensive  war,  and  was  not  binding  in  the  present  war,  which 
was  commenced  by  France.  The  other  two  members  deemed  it  un- 
necessary at  that  time  to  decide  this  question.  The  question  is  here 
suggested,  whether  the  proclamation  of  neutrality,  to  which  both  these 
gentlemen  had  assented,  was  not  itself  tantamount  to  a  limitation  or  sus- 
pension of  the  guaranty.  None  appear  to  have  been  in  favor  of  con- 
vening congress. 

The  president,  in  accordance  with  the  opinions  of  Jefferson  and  Ran- 


112  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

dolph,  concluded  to  receive  tlie  Frencli  minister  without  qualifications  or 
explanations. 

The  proclamation  was  issued  on  the  22d  of  April.  It  declared  the 
disposition  of  the  government  to  maintain  the  existing  friendly  relations 
with  the  belligerent  powers  of  Europe,  and  enjoined  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  to  forbear  all  acts  inconsistent  with  neutrality. 

Hitherto  no  open  assaults  had  been  made  upon  the  president  himself; 
but  his  popularity  was  no  longer  sufficient  to  shield  him  from  the  cen- 
sures of  the  opponents  of  his  administration.  The  proclamation  was 
regarded  as  evincing  hostility  to  France,  and  partiality  for  Great  Britain. 
The  cabinet  had  unanimously  advised  the  proclamation  ;  but  the  difi"erent 
views  of  the  members  on  the  French  question  in  general,  were  well  known, 
and  tended  to  keep  up  the  opposition  to  the  administration. 

The  present  minister  of  France,  Mr.  Ternant,  who  had  been  appointed 
by  the  king,  was  recalled,  and  succeeded  by  one  more  zealously  disposed 
to  carry  out  the  designs  of  the  new  government.  The  name  of  the  new 
minister  was  Edmund  C.  G-enet,  usually  called  Citizen  Genet,  the  title 
of  citizen  having  been  substituted  for  that  of  Mr.  There  is  scarcely  a 
more  interesting  chapter  in  the  history  of  our  government,  than  that 
which  records  the  diplomatic  career  of  this  minister  in  the  United  States. 
It  discloses  the  designs  of  the  French  government  to  induce  the  United 
States  "  to  make  common  cause"  with  that  country  in  a  war  against 
Great  Britain  and  other  European  powers ;  and  but  for  the  prudence  and 
firmness  of  the  American  executive,  and  the  indiscretion  of  the  French 
minister  himself,  this  country  would  probably  have  been  involved  in  a 
most  perilous  war. 

Genet  arrived  at  Charleston,  S.  C,  April  8th,  1793,  where  he  was 
received  with  great  enthusiasm.  He  immediately  commenced  enlisting 
American  citizens,  and  fitting  out  and  commissioning  vessels  of  war  to 
cruise  against  the  enemies  of  France.  The  transactions  of  Genet  at 
Charleston  were  made  the  subject  of  complaint  by  the  British  minister 
to  the  president.  To  this  cause  of  complaint  was  soon  added  that  of 
the  annoyance  of  British  commerce  by  the  privateers  fitted  out  by  Genet, 
and  of  the  capture,  by  the  French  frigate,  L'Ambuscade,  of  the  British 
ship  Grange,  within  the  capes  of  Delaware,  on  her  way  from  the  port  of 
Philadelphia  to  the  ocean ;  for  which  the  British  minister  demanded 
restitution. 

The  memorials  of  Mr.  Hammond,  the  British  minister,  having  been 
laid  before  the  cabinet,  it  was  unanimously  decided,  that,  as  no  foreign 
power  could  exercise  authority  within  the  jurisdictional  limits  of  an  inde- 
pendent nation,  the  acts  complained  of,  not  being  warranted  by  treaty, 
were  violations  of  neutral  rights.     The  decision  was  also  unanimous. 


GENET,    THE    FRENCH   MINISTER  113 

that  the  Grange,  having  been  captured  within  the  waters  of  the  United 
States,  should  be  restored  to  her  owners.  But  with  respect  to  the  resto- 
ration of  the  vessels  captured  by  the  privateers  fitted  out  by  G-enet,  there 
was  a  difference  of  opinion.  Jefferson  and  Randolph  held,  that  if  the 
commissions  issued  by  Genet  were  invalid,  the  courts  would  adjudge  the 
property  to  the  former  owners.  Remedy  ought  therefore  to  be  sought 
by  a  recourse  to  law  and  not  to  the  government.  And  with  a  disavowal 
of  the  act,  and  the  taking  of  measures  to  prevent  its  repetition.  Great 
Britain  ought  to  be  satisfied.  Hamilton  and  Knox  maintained  that  the 
captures  were  illegal,  and  in  violation  of  the  proclamation  of  neutral- 
ity ;  and  that,  by  refusing  to  make  restitution,  the  United  States  would 
become  a  party  to  the  war.  The  case  being  one  in  which  the  national 
sovereignty  was  infringed,  it  was  a  proper  one  for  the  government^  and 
not  for  the  courts  to  determine.  They  therefore  advised  the  restoration 
of  the  vessels.  On  this  point,  the  president  took  time  to  deliberate.  He 
afterwards  adopted  the  opinions  of  the  two  latter  gentlemen. 

The  decision  that  the  commissions  issued  by  Genet  were  illegal  and 
void,  and  that  the  Grange  should  be  restored — points  upon  which  all 
were  agreed — was  communicated  to  the  British  and  French  ministers, 
the  day  before  the  arrival  of  Genet  at  Philadelphia.  Letters  were  also 
addressed  to  the  executives  of  the  several  states,  requiring  them  to  aid 
in  executing  the  rules  established.  After  a  stay  of  several  weeks  at 
Charleston,  Genet  proceeded  to  Philadelphia.  He  was  received  at 
different  places  on  the  way,  with  expressions  of  the  warmest  attach- 
ment. On  the  16th  of  April,  he  arrived  at  the  seat  of  government, 
amidst  the  shouts  of  the  joyous  multitude,  embracing  a  large  portion  of 
the  inhabitants.  The  communication  sent  the  day  previous  to  Mr.  Ter- 
nant,  was  by  him  in  due  time  delivered  to  Genet,  whose  displeasure  was 
highly  excited  by  the  decisions  of  the  administration  on  the  French 
question. 

Genet  was  the  bearer  of  a  public  letter  addressed  by  the  national  con- 
vention to  the  people  of  the  United  States.  This  letter,  published  at 
Paris  in  December,  had  been  republished  in  this  country  before  his 
arrival.  In  it  the  convention  say  :  "  The  immense  distance  which  parts 
us,  prevents  your  taking,  in  this  glorious  regeneration  of  Europe,  that 
concern  which  your  principles  and  past  conduct  reserved  to  you."  On 
the  18th  of  May,  he  was  formally  presented  to  the  president  and 
duly  received.  On  this  occasion  he  assured  the  president  that,  "  on 
account  of  the  remote  situation  of  the  United  States,  and  other  circum- 
stances, France  did  not  expect  that  they  should  become  a  party  in  the 
war,  but  wished  to  see  them  preserve  their  prosperity  and  happiness  in 
peace."     It  afterwards  appeared,  however,  that  he  had  brought  with  him 

8  . 


114  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

secret  instructions,  charging  him  to  endeavor  to  induce  the  American 
government  to  make  common  cause  with  France. 

On  the  23d  of  May,  Grenet  communicated  a  decree  of  the  French 
convention,  by  which  American  vessels  were  admitted  into  the  ports  of 
France  and  her  East  and  West  India  colonies,  with  the  same  privileges 
as  those  enjoyed  by  her  own.  In  the  letter  accompanying  this  decree, 
he  says  :  "  The  French  republic,  seeing  in  the  Americans  but  brothers, 
has  opened  to  them,  by  the  decrees  now  inclosed,  all  her  ports  in  the 
two  worlds;  and  has  charged  me  to  propose  to  your  government  to 
establish,  in  a  true  family  compact,  the  liberal  and  fraternal  basis  on 
which  she  wishes  to  see  raised  the  commercial  and  political  system  of 
the  two  people,  all  whose  interests  are  confounded."  In  forming  this 
new  "  compact"  it  was  the  object  of  the  French  executive  council,  as 
appears  from  their  instructions,  to  enlarge  the  treaty  of  1778.  They 
suggest  "  a  national  agreement,  to  befriend  the  empire  of  liberty,  to 
guaranty  the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  and  to  punish  those  powers  who 
still  keep  up  an  exclusive  colonial  and  commercial  system,  by  declaring 
that  their  vessels  shall  not  be  received  in  the  ports  of  the  contracting 
parties."  Genet  was  instructed  to  require  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  "  enlarged"  treaty,  a  new  guaranty  of  the  French  West  India 
Islands,  as  a  condition  of  their  free  commerce  with  those  islands.  His 
instructions  say  :  "  The  citizen  Grenet  will  find  the  less  difficulty  in  mak- 
ing this  proposition  relished  in  the  United  States,  as  the  trade  which  will 
be  the  reward  of  it  will  indemnify  them  ultimately  for  the  sacrifices  they 
may  make  at  the  outset ;  and  the  Americans  can  not  be  ignorant  of  the 
great  disproportion  between  their  resources  and  those  of  the  French 
republic ;  and  that  for  a  long  period,  the  guaranty  asked  of  them  will  be 
little  else  than  nominal  for  them,  while  that  on  our  part  will  be  real  j 
and  we  shall  immediately  put  ourselves  in  a  state  to  fulfill  it,  in  sending 
to  the  American  ports  a  sufficient  force  to  put  them  beyond  insult,  and 
to  facilitate  their  communication  with  the  islands  and  with  France." 

From  these  instructions,  and  the  subsequent  conduct  of  Grenet,  it 
became  evident  to  the  American  government,  that,  in  the  proposed  modi- 
fication of  the  commercial  and  political  relations  of  the  two  countries, 
the  chief  object  was  to  eifect  such  a  political  connection  with  France,  as 
would  have  identified  the  United  States  with  her  in  all  her  fortunes. 

France  being  engaged  in  war,  and  in  want  of  funds.  Genet  was  in- 
structed to  request  the  immediate  payment  of  the  remainder  of  the 
French  debt,  not  yet  due.  As  an  inducement,  he  proposed  to  expend 
the  whole  sum  (between  two  and  three  millions  of  dollars,)  in  the  pur- 
chase of  provisions  and  other  productions  of  the  United  States.  The 
government,  unwilling  to  resort  to  new  loans  for  this  purpose,  especially 


GENETj    THE    FRENCH   MINISTER.  115 

as  money  could  not  then  be  obtained  on  favorable  terms,  declined  the 
proposal.  At  this  refusal  Genet  took  offense,  and,  in  his  reply,  said  it 
tended  "  to  accomplish  the  infernal  system  of  the  king  of  England,  and 
of  the  other  kings,  his  accomplices,  to  destroy,  by  famine,  the  French 
republicans  and  liberty." 

Upon  every  decision  of  the  government  unfavorable  to  the  designs  of 
Genet,  he  made  direct  issue.  He  claimed  the  right  to  arm  vessels  in 
the  ports  of  the  United  States,  under  that  article  of  the  treaty  by  which 
the  parties  agreed  not  to  permit  the  enemies  of  either  to  fit  out  priva- 
teers in  their  ports.  The  express  prohibition  of  this  privilege  to  ene- 
mies, he  considered  as  implying  a  permission  to  the  parties  themselves. 
The  president  maintained,  that  the  silence  of  the  treaty  respecting  the 
rights  of  the  contracting  parties  did  not  justify  the  inference  of  the  right 
claimed.  This  point,  on  which  the  treaty  was  silent,  must  be  determined 
by  circumstances.  Genet  also  insisted  on  the  right,  by  the  treaty,  to  arm 
vessels  and  to  try  and  sell  prizes  in  American  ports,  under  the  article 
allowing  each  party  to  bring  prizes  into  the  ports  of  the  other.  The 
president  considered  this  provision  as  merely  a  permission  to  the  parties 
to  enter  and  leave  the  ports  of  each  other  with  prizes,  but  not  of  equip- 
ping vessels.  Genet  also  held  the  singular  doctrine,  that  the  American 
government  was  not  responsible  for  the  acts  of  its  citizens  who  had 
enlisted  on  board  of  the  French  privateers,  as  they  had  for  the  time 
renounced  the  protection  of  their  own  country. 

Notwithstanding  the  determination  of  the  government  to  enforce  the 
rules  of  neutrality,  Genet  persisted  in  his  unlawful  acts.  In  his  war- 
fare against  the  government,  he  was  encouraged  by  the  aid  he  received 
from  our  own  citizens.  A  powerful  political  party  and  its  presses  were 
allied  with  him  in  this  warfare.  The  two  opposition  papers  at  Philadel- 
phia, Freneau's  Gazette,  and  Bache's  Advertiser,  both  pronounced  the 
proclamation,  not  only  a  violation  of  the  treaties  with  France,  but  a 
usurpation  of  the  rights  of  congress.  Genet  was  expressly  told  that  the 
people  would  sustain  him.  The  lead  of  these  papers  was  soon  followed 
by  kindred  presses  in  other  parts  of  the  union. 

The  paper  first  above  mentioned  exhorted  thus :  "  The  minister  of 
France,  I  hope,  will  act  with  firmness  and  with  spirit.  The  people  are 
his  friends,  or  the  friends  of  France,  and  he  will  have  nothing  to  appre- 
hend ;  for  as  yet  the  people  are  sovereign  of  the  United  States.  *  *  * 
If  one  of  the  leading  features  of  our  government  is  pusillanimity,  when 
the  British  lion  shows  his  teeth,  let  France  and  her  minister  act  as  be- 
comes the  dignity  and  justice  of  her  cause,  and  the  honor  and  faith  of 
nations."  The  other  paper  said :  "  It  is  no  longer  possible  to  doubt, 
that  the  intention  of  the  executive  of  the  United  States  is,  to  look  upon 


116  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  between  France  and  America,  as  a 
nullity ;  and  that  they  are  prepared  to  join  the  league  of  kings  against 
France." 

An  impulse  was  also  sought  to  be  given  to  the  cause  of  France  by  the 
formation  of  "  democratic  societies,"  on  the  plan  of  the  Jacobin  clubs  of 
Paris.  The  first  of  these  was  formed  in  Philadelphia,  soon  after  Glenet's 
arrival.  The  declared  object  of  these  societies  was  the  protection  of 
American  liberty  against  a  "  European  confederacy,"  and  "  the  pride  of 
wealth  and  arrogance  of  power"  at  home.  These  societies  brought  their 
influence  to  bear  against  the  president,  and  in  favor  of  the  French  min- 
ister. After  the  fall  of  Robespiere  in  France,  these  societies,  as  did 
their  prototypes  in  Paris,  soon  died  away. 

Thus  supported,  it  is  not  so  strange  that  Genet  persisted  in  setting 
the  government  at  defiance.  It  was  said  that  not  less  than  fifty  British 
vessels — some  of  them  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States — 
were  captured  by  vessels  fitted  out  and  acting  under  his  authority.  And 
in  spite  of  express  prohibitions,  French  consuls  continued  to  exercise  ad- 
miralty powers,  in  holding  prize  courts,  and  in  the  condemnation  and 
sale  of  prizes. 

The  language  of  the  French  minister  in  his  correspondence  was  highly 
disrespectful  and  ofi"ensive.  Obstructions  to  the  arming  of  French  ves- 
sels, he  pronounced  "  an  attempt  on  the  rights  of  man,"  and  insinuated 
the  charge  against  the  American  government  of  "  a  cowardly  abandon- 
ment of  their  friends,"  and  of  acting  against  "  the  intention  of  the 
people  of  America,"  whose  "  fraternal  voice  resounded  from  every 
quarter  around  him." 

Another  subject  of  complaint  by  the  French  minister  was,  that  French 
property  had  been  taken  by  British  cruisers  from  American  vessels, 
without  any  effort  on  the  part  of  our  government  to  reclaim  it.  This  he 
declared  to  be  contrary  to  the  principles  of  neutrality  and  the  law  of 
nations,  that  "friendly  vessels  make  friendly  goods."  In  permitting 
this  seizure  of  French  goods,  he  charged  our  government,  indirectly, 
with  tolerating  "  an  audacious  piracy,"  and  says,  "  the  French,  too  con- 
fidant, are  punished  for  having  believed  that  the  (American)  nation  had 
a  flag ;  that  they  had  some  respect  for  their  laws,  some  conviction  of 
their  strength ;  and  entertained  some  sentiment  of  dignity.  But,"  says 
he,  "  if  our  fellow-citizens  have  been  deceived,  and  if  you  are  not  in  a 
condition  to  maintain  the  sovereignty  of  your  people,  speak ;  we  have 
guarantied  it  when  slaves,  we  shall  be  able  to  render  it  formidable,  having 
become  freemen."  And  he  wished  to  know  what  measures  had  been 
taken  to  restore  the  property  plundered  from  his  fellow-citizens,  under 
the  American  flag. 


GENET,    THE   FRENCH   MINISTER.  U7 

The  secretary  of  state,  in  answer,  reminds  the  minister  of  a  very  im- 
portant mistake.  He  is  told  that,  by  the  law  of  nations,  "  the  goods  of 
a  friend,  found  in  the  vessel  of  an  enemy,  are  free ;  and  that  the  goods 
of  an  enemy,  found  in  the  vessel  of  a  friend,  are  lawful  prize."  It  was 
true,  that,  by  a  special  provision  in  our  treaty  with  France,  the  character 
of  the  vessel  should  be  imparted  to  the  cargo  ;  that  is,  free  ships  should 
make  free  goods.  But  no  such  regulation  existed  between  the  United 
States  and  Glreat  Britain :  therefore,  in  this  case,  the  law  of  nations 
must  govern. 

Genet's  disrespect  of  the  public  authorities  was  strikingly  evinced  in 
the  case  of  the  Little  Sarah.  This  vessel  had  been  taken  by  a  French 
frigate,  and  brought  into  the  port  of  Philadelphia,  where  she  was 
equipped  as  a  privateer,  and  called  Little  Democrat.  When  the  vessel 
was  about  to  sail,  Mr.  Hamilton,  to  whom  the  fact  had  become  known, 
communicated  the  same  to  the  other  secretaries,  the  president  having 
been  suddenly  called  to  Mount  Yernon.  The  interposition  of  the 
governor  of  Pennsylvania  was  requested,  who  sent  his  .secretary  of  state, 
Mr.  Dallas,  to  persuade  Genet  to  detain  the  vessel,  and  save  him  the 
necessity  of  employing  force.  On  receiving  the  message,  Genet  became 
enraged,  and  indulged  in  intemperate  language  toward  those  officers  of 
the  government  whom  he  considered  inimical  to  the  cause  of  France, 
and  by  whom  the  president  was  misled.  He  said  the  president  had  not 
the  power  to  issue  a  proclamation  of  neutrality ;  it  belonged  to  congress ; 
and  he  intimated  his  intention  to  appeal  from  the  president  to  the 
people.  He  would  remain  until  the  meeting  of  congress ;  and  if  the 
representatives  of  the  people  should  sustain  the  president,  he  would 
depart,  and  leave  the  dispute  to  be  settled  by  the  two  nations. 

Genet  having  refused  to  give  any  pledge  to  detain  the  vessel,  Gov. 
Mifflin  ordered  out  one  hundred  and  twenty  men  to  take  possession  of 
her.  Mr.  Jefferson,  desirous  to  prevent  the  employment  of  military 
force,  called  on  Genet  to  induce  him  to  give  his  word  that  the  privateer 
should  remain  till  the  return  of  the  president.  But  he  refused,  saying 
the  crew  would  resist  by  force  any  attempt  to  seize  the  vessel ;  declaring 
at  the  same  time  that  she  was  not  ready  to  sail.  It  was  intended 
merely  to  move  a  little  down  the  river  that  day ;  and  the  declaration 
that  she  was  not  yet  ready  to  sail,  was  repeated  in  such  a  manner  as  to  in- 
duce the  belief  that  she  would  not  depart.  Mr.  Jefferson  having  ex- 
pressed this  belief  to  the  governor,  the  militia  were  dismissed.  Messrs. 
Hamilton  and  Knox  then  proposed  to  erect  a  battery  on  Mud  Island  to 
prevent  her  passage  down  the  river.  Mr.  Jefferson  dissenting,  the 
measure  was  not  adopted ;  and  before  the  arrival  of  the  president,  the 
vessel  passed  down  to  Chester,  whence  she  might  at  any  time  sail  without 
fear  of  having  her  progress  arrested  by  the  government 


118  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  president  reached  Philadelphia  on  the  11th  of  July,  and  requested 
a  cabinet  meeting  at  his  house  the  next  morning.  On  reading  the  papers 
of  the  secretary  of  state  relating  to  the  Little  Democrat,  and  the  secre- 
tary not  being  present,  a  messenger  was  dispatched  for  him  ;  but  he  had 
retired,  indisposed,  to  his  country  seat.  The  president  immediately 
addressed  a  letter  to  him,  which  contained  the  following :  "  What  is  to 
be  done  in  the  case  of  the  Little  Sarah  now  at  Chester  ?  Is  the  minister 
of  the  French  republic  to  set  the  acts  of  this  government  at  defiance  with 
impunity,  and  then  threaten  the  executive  with  an  appeal  to  the  people  ? 
What  must  the  world  think  of  such  conduct,  and  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States  in  submitting  to  it  ?  These  are  serious  questions — 
circumstances  press  for  decision ;  and  as  you  have  tad  time  to  consider 
them,  (upon  me  they  come  unexpectedly,)  I  wish  to  know  your  opinion 
upon  them  even  before  to-morrow ;  for  the  vessel  may  then  be  gone." 
The  secretary  answered,  that  immediate  coercive  measures  had  been  sus- 
pended, on  the  assurances  of  Genet  that  the  vessel  would  await  the  pre- 
sident's decision. 

It  was  agreed  in  the  cabinet  council,  to  refer  to  the  judges  of  the 
supreme  court,  the  case  of  the  Little  Democrat,  together  with  the 
subjects  of  difibrence  between  the  executive  and  the  French  minister  in 
the  construction  of  treaties ;  and  to  retain  in  port  all  privateers  equipped 
by  France  and  England  within  the  United  States.  Genet  was  informed 
of  this  determination ;  but  before  any  decision  could  be  had,  the  Little 
Democrat  sailed,  and  other  vessels  soon  followed. 

The  conduct  of  the  French  minister  having  at  length  become  intoler- 
able, it  was  unanimously  agreed  in  cabinet  council,  that  a  statement  of 
his  acts,  and  a  copy  of  his  correspondence,  with  a  letter  requesting  his 
recall,  should  be  sent  to  Gouverneur  Morris,  to  be  laid  before  the  French 
executive  council.  Genet,  to  whom  a  copy  of  the  statement  was  com- 
municated, was  highly  exasperated  by  this  proceeding.  His  invectives 
were  directed  not  only  against  the  president  and  those  members  of  the 
cabinet  whom  he  considered  "partisans  of  monarchy;"  he  did  not  in  this 
case  spare  the  secretary  of  state,  whom  he  had  regarded  as  a  friend,  and 
who  had  "  initiated  him  into  mysteries  which  had  inflamed  his  hatred 
against  all  those  who  aspired  to  absolute  power."  He  disapproved  the 
use  of  "an  official  language,  and  a  language  confidential." 

Genet,  as  well  as  the  French  consuls,  persisted  in  the  exercise  of  his 
unauthorized  powers.  His  crowning  acts  of  sovereignty  within  the 
United  States,  were  the  setting  on  foot  of  two  military  expeditions 
against  the  Spanish  dominions ;  one  from  South  Carolina  and  Georgia 
for  the  invasion  of  the  Floridas ;  the  other  from  Kentucky  against  New 
Orleans  and  Louisiana.     He  had  issued  commissions  for  the  enlistment 


POLICY    OF    GREAT   BRITAIN.  119 

of  men,  and  considerable  progress  had  been  made  in  raising  troops,  when 
the  movement,  though  conducted  secretly,  became  known,  and  measures 
were  taken  by  the  government  of  South  Carolina  for  its  suppression. 
The  other  project  found  great  favor  with  the  western  inljabitants,  who 
complained  of  the  exclusion,  by  Spain,  of  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
from  a  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi ;  and  it  was  not  without  some 
difficulty  that  the  federal  authorities  succeeded  in  arresting  the 
enterprise. 

But  we  may  not  extend  this  sketch  of  the  proceedings  of  the  French 
minister.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that,  in  consequence  of  his  continued  inso- 
lence, and  his  efforts  to  array  the  people  and  their  representatives  against 
the  executive,  the  president  came  to  the  determination  to  refuse  all  far- 
ther intercourse  with  him;  and  was  about  to  present  the  subject  to  con- 
gress, when  his  recall  was  officially  communicated  by  Mr.  Morris. 
Fauchet,  the  new  minister,  arrived  soon  after,  (February,  1794,)  and  Mr. 
Morris,  not  sufficiently  zealous  for  the  French  cause,  was  recalled  at  the 
request  of  the  executive  government  of  France ;  and  Mr.  Monroe,  an 
ardent  friend  of  France,  was  appointed  to  succeed  him. 

There  was,  perhaps,  no  time  when  there  was  not  a  majority  of  the 
people  in  favor  of  neutrality  and  the  proclamation.  The  reprehensible 
conduct  of  the  French  minister,  and  the  horrid  excesses  committed  by 
the  revolutionists,  doubtless  weakened  the  cause  of  France  in  this 
country.  There  was,  however,  a  powerful  party  opposed  to  the  proclama- 
tion, and  in  favor  of  joining  France.  This  party  derived  not  a  little 
strength  from  the  divisions  known  to  exist  in  the  cabinet.  Mr.  Jefferson 
entertained  a  strong  partiality  for  France,  and  considered  the  guaranty 
in  full  force.  Although  he  had  assented  to  the  proclamation,  he  regarded 
the  question  of  neutrality  as  merely  reserved  to  the  meeting  of  congress. 

This  question  was  publicly  discussed  by  Hamilton  and  Madison. 
These  two  distinguished  statesmen,  who  had  been  associated  in  advo- 
cating the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  in  those  celebrated  numbers  of 
the  Federalist,  now  took  opposite  sides  in  the  practical  construction  of 
that  instrument  with  reference  to  an  important  question.  Hamilton 
appeared  in  seven  numbers,  under  the  signature  of  Pacificus,  in  which 
the  authority  of  the  executive  to  issue  the  proclamation,  and  its  consis- 
tency with  our  treaties  with  France,  were  maintained  with  great  ability. 
These  numbers  were  replied  to  by  Madison  at  the  request,  it  is  said,  of 
Jefferson.  The  reply  was  in  five  numbers,  signed  Helvidius,  in  which 
the  positions  of  Pacificus  were  combated  with  great  ingenuity  and  force. 

The  reaction  in  favor  of  the  government  produced  by  the  causes  above 
mentioned,  were  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  operation  of  certain 
measures  of  the  British  government  annoying  to  neutral  trade.     The 


120  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

transfer  of  a  large  portion  of  tlie  laboring  population  of  France  from 
their  usual  avocations  to  the  military  service,  added  to  other  causes,  had 
produced  a  scarcity  of  provisions.  Induced  by  this  state  of  things,  as 
well  as  by  o^her  motives,  she  had,  as  has  been  observed,  opened  her  ports 
to  neutral  commerce. 

In  perfect  contrast  with  this  measure,  was  the  policy  of  Great  Britain. 
In  the  hope  of  reducing  her  enemy  by  famine,  it  was  determined  to  cut 
off  external  supplies.  Instructions  were  accordingly  issued  to  the 
British  cruisers  to  stop  all  vessels  having  on  board  breadstuffs,  and 
bound  to  any  port  of  France,  and  to  bring  them  into  a  convenient  port. 
If  they  were  proved  to  be  neutral  property,  the  cargoes  were  to  be  pur- 
chased and  the  ships  released ;  or,  both  ships  and  cargoes  were  to  be 
released  on  the  master's  giving  bond  that  they  would  proceed  to  dispose 
of  the  cargo  in  the  ports  of  countries  at  peace  with  Great  Britain.  These 
instructions,  issued  the  8th  of  June,  1 793,  did  not  reach  the  United 
States  until  September.  Great  Britain,  in  justification  of  this  measure, 
alleged  that,  by  the  law  of  nations,  as  laid  down  by  the  most  modern 
writers,  all  provisions  were  deemed  contraband  and  liable  to  confiscation, 
when  the  depriving  of  an  enemy  of  these  supplies  was  one  of  the  means 
intended  to  be  employed  for  reducing  him  to  reasonable  terms  of  peace. 
But  the  British  orders,  it  was  said,  did  not  go  even  to  the  extent  allowable, 
neither  prohibiting  all  kinds  of  provisions,  nor  requiring  forfeiture.  The 
American  government,  on  the  other  hand,  maintained,  that  both  "  reason 
and  usage  had  established,  that  when  two  nations  went  to  war,  those  who 
chose  to  live  in  peace,  retain  their  natural  rights  to  puisue  their  agricul- 
ture, manufactures,  and  other  ordinary  vocations  ;  to  carry  the  produce 
of  their  industry,  for  exchange,  to  all  nations,  belligerents  or  neutrals 
as  usual ;  to  go  and  come  freely,  without  injury  or  molestation." 

Great  Britain  also  urged  that  the  neutral  character  of  the  trade  was 
changed  by  the  fact,  that  the  contracts  for  the  greater  part  of  the  car- 
goes had  been  made  by  the  French  government.  It  was  therefore  a 
national,  not  an  individual  transaction.  It  was  farther  urged  in  justifi- 
cation, that  the  measure  was  sanctioned  by  the  example  of  France  her- 
self. A  decree  of  her  national  convention,  issued  in  May,  and  remain- 
ing in  full  force,  authorized  the  capture  and  condemnation  of  an  enemy's 
property  in  neutral  vessels,  (not  excepting  those  of  the  United  States,) 
contrary  to  a  special  stipulation  in  the  treaty  between  the  United  States 
and  France,  that  "free  ships  should  make  free  goods." 

The  enforcement  of  these  orders,  in  which  the  allied  powers  were 
united,  greatly  embarrassed  American  commerce.  This  measure,  super- 
added to  the  supposed  encouragement  of  Indian  hostilities  by  the  British 
in  Canada ;  the  continued  occupation  of  the  western  military  posts ;  the 


THE    THIRD    CONGRESS.  lUl 

alleged  agency  of  the  British  government  in  the  depredations  upon  our 
commerce,  and  the  enslavement  of  our  seamen  by  Algerine  cruisers ;  and 
the  impressment  of  American  seamen  into  the  British  service  ;  awakened 
resentments  in  the  American  people,  towards  Great  Britain,  scarcely  less 
intense^than  those  which  impelled  them  to  arms  to  secure  their  independ- 
ence. Add  to  all  this  the  menacing  aspect  of  affairs  with  Spain,  the 
Florida  boundary  question  remaining  unsettled;  the  southern  states 
threatened  with  war  from  the  Creeks  and  Cherokees,  supposed  to  have 
been  instigated  by  the  Spanish  government;  the  Mississippi  closed 
against  the  Americans,  a  cause  of  general  discontent  among  the  western 
inhabitants ;  and  a  strong  suspicion  of  an  alliance  between  Spain  and 
Great  Britain  against  the  United  States  ; — and  it  was  easy  to  imagine 
the  difficulty  of  maintaining  the  position  of  neutrality  assumed  by  the 
administration. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE      THIRD     CONGRESS.— 

COMMERCIAL    REPORT  ;     HIS   RESIGNATION. MADISON's     RESOLUTIONS. 

PROSPECT    OF   WAR   WITH    GREAT  BRITAIN. JAY's  MISSION  TO  ENGLAND. 

In  the  state  of  affairs  just  described,  the  new  congress  convened  on 
the  2d  of  December,  1793  ;  and  its  deliberations  were  awaited  with  deep 
interest. 

At  this  session,  a  resolution  was  passed  by  the  senate,  declaring  that 
the  business  of  that  body,  hitherto  transacted  with  closed  doors,  should 
be  done  publicly,  after  the  termination  of  the  present  session. 

In  the  house,  Frederick  A.  Muhlenburg,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  elected 
speaker  over  Theodore  Sedgwick,  of  Massachusetts,  by  a  majority  of  ten 
votes,  indicating  a  predominance  of  the  opposition  party  in  that  body. 

The  president,  in  his  speech,  alluding  to  the  measures  adopted  as  a 
rule  of  conduct  toward  belligerent  nations,  ascribed  them  to  a  desire  to 
prevent  the  interruption  of  our  intercourse  with  them,  and  to  manifest  a 
disposition  for  peace.  He  said :  "  In  this  posture  of  affairs,  both  new 
and  delicate,  I  resolved  to  adopt  general  rules  which  should  conform  to 
the  treaties,  and  assert  the  privileges  of  the  United  States.  These  were 
reduced  to  a  system,  which  shall  be  communicated  to  you."  He  sug- 
gested to  congress  the  expediency  of  providing  remedies  in  cases  "  where 
individuals  shall,  within  the  United  States,  array  themselves  in  hostility 
against  any  of  the  powers  at  war,  or  enter  upon  military  expeditions  or 


122  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

enterprises,  or  usurp  and  exercise  judicial  authority,  within  the  United 
States;"  and  then  said: 

"  I  can  not  recommend  to  your  notice  measures  for  the  fulfillment  of 
our  duties  to  the  rest  of  the  world,  without  again  pressing  upon  you  the 
necessity  of  placing  ourselves  in  a  condition  of  complete  defense^  and  of 
exacting  from  them  the  fulfillment  of  their  duties  toward  us.  *  *  * 
There  is  a  rank  due  to  the  United  States  among  nations  which  will  be 
withheld,  if  not  absolutely  lost,  by  the  reputation  of  weakness.  If  we 
desire  to  avoid  insult,  we  must  be  able  to  repel  it ;  if  we  desire  to  secure 
peace — one  of  the  most  powerful  instruments  of  our  prosperity — it  must 
be  known  that  we  are,  at  all  times,  ready  for  war."  He  also  suggested 
provisions  for  "  the  regular  redemption  and  discharge  of  the  public 
debt,"  and  the  "  productiveness  of  the  public  revenues." 

In  this  message  was  recommended  a  just  and  humane  policy  towards 
the  Indian  nations,  designed  "  to  conciliate  their  attachment"  and  "  to 
render  tranquillity  with  them  permanent,  by  creating  ties  of  interest" — 
a  policy  strictly  pursued  during  several  successive  administrations. 

In  a  message  communicated  a  day  or  two  after,  the  president  referred 
to  the  orders  and  decrees  of  Great  Britain  and  France,  so  injurious  to 
our  commerce,  and  informed  congress  of  the  acts  and  proceedings  of  the 
French  minister,  "  the  tendency  of  which,"  he  said,  "  had  been  to  in- 
volve us  in  war  abroad,  and  discord  and  anarchy  at  home." 

The  house  of  representatives,  in  their  answer,  which  was  unanimously 
adopted,  said  :  "  The  maintenance  of  peace  was  justly  to  *be  regarded 
as  one  of  the  most  important  duties  of  the  magistrate  charged  with  the 
faithful  execution  of  the  laws.  We  therefore  witness,  with  approbation 
and  pleasure,  the  vigilance  with  which  you  have  guarded  an  interruption 
of  that  blessing  by  your  proclamation,  admonishing  our  fellow-citizens 
of  the  consequences  of  illicit  and  hostile  acts  toward  the  belligerent 
parties ;  and  promoting,  by  a  declaration  of  the  existing  legal  state  of 
things,  an  easier  admission  of  our  right  to  the  immunities  belonging  to 
our  situation."     The  senate  responded  in  similar  terms  of  approbation. 

On  the  16th  of  December,  Mr.  Jefferson  made  a  report  to  the  house 
on  the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  in  pursuance  of  a  resolution  of 
that  body,' passed  in  February,  1791,  instructing  him  "to  report  to 
congress  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  privileges  and  restrictions  of  the 
commercial  intercourse  of  the  United  States  with  foreign  nations,  and 
the  measures  which  he  should  think  proper  to  be  adopted  for  the  im- 
provement of  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  the  same."  This  report 
is  by  some  considered  one  of  the  ablest  official  productions  of  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson. 

From  this  report  it  appeared,  that  the  exports  of  the  United  States  in 


123 

domestic  produce  and  manufactures,  amounted  to  $19,587,055  ,  tlie  im- 
ports to  $19,823,000.  Of  the  exports,  nearly  one-half  were  carried  to 
Grreat  Britain  and  her  dominions  ;  of  the  imports,  about  four-fifths  came 
from  the  same  countries.  American  shipping  was  277,519  tons,  of 
which  not  quite  one-sixth  was  employed  in  the  trade  with  those  countries. 
In  all  the  nations  of  Europe,  most  of  our  products  bore  heavy  duties, 
and  some  articles  were  prohibited.  In  Great  Britain,  our  trade  was  on 
the  whole  on  as  good  footing  as  that  of  other  countries :  some  articles 
were  more  favored  than  similar  articles  from  other  countries. 

Our  navigation  was  seriously  affected  by  the  regulations  of  Grreat 
Britain.  Her  navigation  acts  of  1660  and  1663,  which  prohibited  to 
the  colonies  the  privilege  allowed  to  other  countries,  of  bringing  their 
own  productions  into  Great  Britain,  were  unrepealed.  Since  the  war, 
the  king  had  been  authorized  to  extend  this  privilege  to  the  United 
States,  and  had  done  so  from  year  to  year  by  proclamation  ;  but  a  more 
secure  enjoyment  of  the  right  was  desirable.  The  report  stated  also, 
that  a  large  proportion  of  the  commodities  exported  to  Great  Britain, 
were  required  to  be  carried  to  her  ports,  to  be  thence  reexported ;  thus 
subjecting  them  to  additional  charges  of  double  voyage. 

As  a  method  of  relief  to  our  commerce,  the  secretary  proposed,  first, 
as  being  preferable,  the  removal  of  these  restrictions  by  friendly  arrange- 
ments ;  or,  secondly,  by  countervailing  acts.  If  a  nation  persists  in  a 
"  system  of  prohibitions,  duties,  and  regulations,  it  behooves  the  United 
States  to  protect  their  citizens,  their  commerce,  and  navigation,  by 
counter  prohibitions,  duties,  and  regulations  also."  Our  navigation  was 
said  to  be  valuable  as  a  branch  of  industry,  but  more  so  as  a  resource  of 
defense. 

It  was  stated,  that  France  had  proposed  entering  into  a  new  treaty  for 
improving  the  commercial  relations  of  the  two  countries ;  but  her  inter- 
nal disturbances  had  prevented  the  prosecution  of  the  negotiation  to 
effect.  Proposals  of  friendly  arrangements  with  Great  Britain  had  been 
made  on  our  part ;  "  but  being  already  on  as  good  a  footing  in  law,  and 
a  better  in  fact,  than  the  most  favored  nations,  she  has  not  as  yet  dis- 
covered any  disposition  to  have  it  meddled  with." 

The  secretary  stated,  that,  since  the  report  was  prepared  in  time  to  be 
laid  before  the  preceding  congress,  France  had  relaxed  some  of  the 
restraints  mentioned  in  the  report ;  and  Spain  had  made  free  ports  of 
New  Orleans,  Pensacola,  and  St.  Augustine,  to  the  vessels  of  friendly 
nations  having  treaties  of  commerce  with  her.  She  had  excluded  our 
rice  from  her  dominions.  On  account  of  the  war  she  had  given  us  free 
access  to  her  West  India  islands ;  but  our  vessels  were  liable  to  serious 
vexations  and  depredations. 


124 


THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


In  a  subsequent  report,  (December  30,)  tbe  secretary  communicated 
tbe  copy  of  a  decree  of  the  French  national  convention,  admitting  pro- 
visions and  certain  other  articles  into  the  French  West  India  islands,  in 
American  vessels,  free  of  duty;  also,  a  copy  of  the  Spanish  decree 
alluded  to  in  the  former  report. 

This,  the  last  official  act  of  the  secretary,  was  followed,  the  next  day, 
by  his  resignation.  He  had  in  the  summer  intimated  an  intention  to 
resign  in  September ;  but  he  had,  on  solicitation,  deferred  the  execution 
of  his  purpose  till  the  close  of  the  year.  Mr.  Kandolph  was  appointed 
as  his  successor ;  and  the  office  of  attorney-general,  vacated  by  the 
appointment,  was  filled  by  William  Bradford,  of  Pennsylvania. 

On  the  4th  of  January,  1794,  Mr.  Madison  introduced  his  noted  reso- 
lutions, designed  to  carry  out  the  objects  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  commercial 
report.  The  first  of  these  resolutions  declared  it  expedient  to  increase 
the  duties  on  the  tonnage  of  vessels  of  nations  which  had  no  commercial 
treaties  with  the  United  States,  and  on  their  manufactures  of  leather, 
metals,  wool,  cotton,  hemp,  flax,  and  silk ;  and  to  reduce  the  tonnage 
duties  on  vessels  of  nations  having  such  treaties.  They  also  proposed  an 
increase  of  duty  on  importations  from  the  West  Indies  in  foreign  vessels 
from  ports  from  which  American  were  excluded. 

On  the  13th  of  January,  Mr.  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  opened  the 
debate  in  opposition  to  these  resolutions.  He  proposed  to  discuss  the 
subject  as  a  purely  commercial  one,  without  reference  to  our  political 
relations  with  foreign  countries.  He  produced  a  table  of  statistics, 
showing  that  our  commerce  was  on  the  whole  as  much  favored  in  Great 
Britain  as  in  France.  These  statistics  did  not  extend  to  a  period  later 
than  the  fiscal  year  ending  September  30,  1792.  The  commercial  regu- 
lations of  France  during  the  period  of  the  revolution,  had  been  too  fluc- 
tuating, too  much  influenced  by  momentary  impulse,  to  be  considered  as 
part  of  a  system.  So  far  as  they  proposed  favors  to  this  country,  they 
manifested  an  object  of  the  moment,  which  could  not  be  mistaken.  The 
privileges  in  the  West  India  trade  ofi'ered  by  G-enet,  he  considered  the 
price  of  becoming  a  party  in  the  war. 

Previous  to  the  demand  in  France  created  by  the  present  war,  the 
exports  of  flour  to  Great  Britain  and  her  colonies,  were  to  those  of 
France  and  her  colonies,  as  twenty  to  one.  He  extended  his  statements 
to  all  the  principal  articles  of  exportation  to  those  two  countries.  The 
average  value  of  our  exports,  annually  for  three  years  from  October  1, 
1789,  was,  to  Great  Britain,  $8,489,830;  to  France,  $4,737,131. 

The  secretary  had  stated  that  a  great  part  of  the  exports  to  Great 
Britain  were  reexported  thence  at  the  disadvantage  of  double  charges. 
This  statement  Mr.   S.   believed  was  founded  on  statements  of  lord 


MADISON  S   RESOLUTIONS.  125 

Sheffiield,  having  reference  to  a  period  prior  to  the  American  revolution, 
when  Great  Britain  had  a  monopoly  of  our  trade.  But  admitting  that 
she  exported  at  present  one-third  of  what  she  received  from  us,  she 
would  still  consume  more  of  our  products  than  France. 

He  considered  large  importations  from  Britain  no  grievance,  but  a 
benefit.  She  could  supply  us  with  an  assortment  of  the  goods  we  wanted ; 
and  could  also  give  us  a  credit,  which  was  an  advantage  to  a  young 
country  wanting  capital.  If  the  encouragement  of  domestic  manufactures 
had  been  made  the  object  of  the  resolutions,  some  alteration  in  our  com- 
mercial regulations  with  Great  Britain  might  be  advantageous.  But  the 
object  was  to  turn  the  tide  of  trade  from  Great  Britain  to  France.  He 
admitted  the  disadvantage  of  a  dependence  on  one  nation  for  a  supply  of 
necessaries ;  but  a  change  should  not  be  brought  about  by  artificial 
methods.  To  lessen  the  importations  from  Great  Britain,  we  must 
impose  higher  duties  on  her  commodities  than  on  those  of  other  countries, 
which  would  be  a  bounty  on  the  manufactures,  not  of  our  own  country, 
but  of  those  of  foreign  nations. 

He  also  noticed  the  statement  of  the  secretary,  that  Great  Britain 
alone  had  discovered  no  disposition  to  negotiate,  but  that  "  we  had  no 
reason  to  conclude  that  friendly  arrangements  would  be  declined  by  other 
nations."  From  the  correspondence  of  the  British  minister,  Mr.  Ham- 
mond, the  fact  appeared  otherwise.  Mr.  Jefferson  asked  him  if  he  was 
empowered  to  treat  on  the  subject  of  commerce.  He  replied  that  he 
was  fully  authorized  to  enter  into  a  negotiation  for  that  purpose,  though 
not  as  yet  empowered  to  coriclude.  Upon  farther  difficulty  and  objection 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  Mr.  Hammond  reassures  him  of  his  compe- 
tency to  enter  on  a  negotiation,  which  is  based  on  his  commission  as 
minister  plenipotentiary  and  his  instructions.  Mr.  Jefferson  requires  a 
communication  of  his  full  powers  for  that  purpose,  and  declines  the 
negotiation.  The  declining,  therefore,  was  not  on  the  part  of  the  British 
minister.  Forms  were  the  obstacle  with  the  secretary  of  state,  whose 
zeal,  at  best,  was  not  greater  than  Mr.  Hammond's.  Measures  had 
bfeen  taken  for  forming  treaties  with  Spain,  and  also  with  Portugal ;  but 
no  proper  treaty  with  either  could  be  obtained.  Why  then  was  Great 
Britain  selected  for  attack,  but  that  it  was  "  most  in  unison  with  our 
passions  to  enter  into  collisions  with  her  ?" 

Mr.  Smith  apprehended  that  the  proposed  regulations  would  provoke 
Great  Britain  to  a  war,  either  of  arms,  or  of  commercial  regulations.  If 
the  former,  she  could  easily  persuade  her  allies  to  make  common  cause 
with  her.  But  if  she  should  prefer  the  latter,  how  would  the  contest 
stand  ?  A  commercial  warfare  would  disturb  the  course  of  one-sixth  of 
her  trade,  and  more  than  one-half  of  ours.     She  had  also  the  advantages 


126  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  greater  capital,  and  of  being  both  a  manufacturing  and  an  agricultural 
nation.  Our  navigation  was  rapidly  increasing  under  the  present  system ; 
and  our  other  great  national  interests  were  in  a  progressive  state.  It 
was  therefore  deemed  impolitic  to  disturb  the  present  order  of  things  by 
hazardous  experiments. 

The  remarks  of  the  speaker  were  extended  to  a  very  great  length,  but 
we  can  not  pursue  them  farther. 

Mr.  Madison  replied  to  Mr.  Smith  the  next  day,  January  14th.  He 
also  was  friendly  to  a  free  intercourse  with  all  nations.  But  to  this 
rule,  as  to  all  general  rules,  there  might  be  exceptions ;  and  the  rule 
itself  required,  what  did  not  exist,  that  it  should  be  general.  The  navi- 
gation act  of  Great  Britain  had  secured  to  her  eleven-twelfths  of  the 
shipping  and  seamen  employed  in  her  trade.  Here  was  a  great  gain 
from  a  departure  of  the  rule.  Another  exception  to  the  advantages  of  a 
free  trade,  is  found  in  the  case  of  two  countries  in  such  relation  to  each 
other,  that  the  one,  by  duties  on  the  manufactures  of  the  other,  might 
not  only  invigorate  its  own,  but  draw  from  the  other  the  workmen  them- 
selves. To  allow  trade  to  regulate  itself,  is,  as  our  own  experience  has 
taught  us,  to  allow  one  nation  to  regulate  it  for  another. 

Mr.  Madison  then  adverted  to  the  effects  of  foreign  policy  upon  our 
trade  and  navigation,  and  the  attention  it  excited  soon  after  the  peace ; 
and  he  recapitulated  the  various  unsuccessful  attempts  to  counteract  the 
foreign  policy,  which  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  a  government  com- 
petent to  regulate  our  commercial  interests,  and  to  vindicate  our  commer- 
cial rights.  When  this  subject  was  discussed  in  the  first  congress,  it  was 
said  we  ought  to  be  generous  to  Great  Britain,  and  give  time  for  nego- 
tiating a  treaty  of  commerce.  We  had  waited  four  years,  and  no  treaty 
is  either  in  train  or  in  prospect. 

Our  navigation,  he  said,  was  not  on  an  equal  footing  with  England 
and  France.  Our  ports  admitted  the  produce  of  all  countries  in  British 
vessels,  while  our  vessels  could  carry  into  the  ports  of  Great  Britain 
only  our  own  commodities ;  and  from  her  West  India  ports  they  were 
entirely  excluded.  The  effects  of  the  British  navigation  acts  would 
appear  from  the  following  facts : 

In  our  trade  with  that  country,  the  amount  of  American  tonnage  em- 
ployed, was  43,000  tons  ;  that  of  Great  Britain,  240,000  tons  :  while  in 
our  intercourse  with  Spain,  our  tonnage  was  to  hers  as  five  to  one ;  with 
Portugal  as  six  to  one ;  Netherlands,  fifteen  to  one ;  Denmark,  twelve 
to  one ;  France,  five  to  one.  This  proportion  had  been  somewhat 
changed  by  particular  circumstances.  Our  tonnage  in  the  same  trade 
with  Great  Britain,  was  still  only  as  one  to  three ;  with  France  between 
four  and  five  to  one.     Our  exports  were  not  only,  for  the  most  part, 


Madison's  resolutions.  127 

necessaries  of  life,  which  the  British  manufacturers  must  have ;  but 
they  were  bulky,  and  required  a  large  amount  of  shipping.  Therefore, 
by  securing  to  ourselves  the  transportation  of  our  own  products,  the  pro- 
portion of  our  shipping  and  sailors  would  be  greatly  increased. 

Of  manufactures  imported,  the  amount  was  stated  to  be  $15,290,000  ; 
of  which  $13,960,000  came  from  Grreat  Britain;  from  France  only 
$155,000,  while  the  latter  actually  consumed  more  of  our  produce  than 
the  former.  The  balance  of  trade,  at  the  same  time,  was  greatly  in  our 
favor  with  every  other  nation,  and  greatly  against  us  with  Great  Britain ; 
and  an  unfavorable  balance,  to  be  paid  in  specie,  was  by  all  nations  con- 
sidered an  evil — especially  was  Great  Britain  careful  to  prevent  it.  We 
consume,  said  Mr.  Madison,  her  manufactures  to  double  the  amount  of 
all  she  takes  from  us,  and  four  times  the  amount  of  what  she  actually 
consumes  of  our  products.  We  take  every  thing  after  it  has  undergone 
all  the  profitable  labor  that  can  be  bestowed  on  it ;  she  receives  in  return, 
raw  materials,  the  food  of  her  industry.  We  send  necessaries  to  her ; 
she  sends  superfluities  to  us. 

As  to  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  nations  having  commercial  treaties 
with  us,  it  had  had  the  sanction  of  votes  in  that  house ;  and  it  was  in 
accordance  with  the  practice  of  nations.  It  tended  to  procure  beneficial 
treaties  from  nations  that  desire  an  equality  with  other  nations  in  their 
commerce. 

The  measure  proposed  was  dictated  by  prudence.  It  would  relieve  us 
from  a  state  of  commercial  dependence.  We  should  not  be  dependent 
upon  a  single  nation  for  necessary  articles  of  consumption,  or  of  defense 
in  time  of  war.  He  apprehended  no  injury  from  the  adoption  of  the 
proposed  measure ;  it  was  not  for  the  interest  of  Great  Britain  to  re- 
taliate. She  would  be  the  greater  sufferer  from  a  stagnation  of  trade 
between  the  two  countries.  Her  merchants,  her  manufacturers,  her 
navigation,  and  her  revenue,  would  be  seriously  affected  by  it.  Her 
West  Indies  would  be  ruined  by  it.  We  too  should  suffer,  but  in  a  less 
degree.  In  proportion  as  a  nation  manufactures  luxuries,  must  be  its 
disadvantage  in  contests  with  its  customers.  Let  the  trade  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  cease,  and  300,000  of  her  manufac- 
turers would  be  thrown  out  of  employment,  and  would  probably  be  added 
to  the  population  of  this  country,  the  natural  asylum  for  the  distressed 
of  Europe. 

It  had  been  said  that  Great  Britain  treated  the  United  States  as  well 
as  she  treated  other  nations.  That  other  nations  were  willing  to  submit 
to  unequal  regulations,  or  were  unable  to  vindicate  their  rights,  ought 
not  to  satisfy  us.  Mr.  Madison  compared  the  regulations  of  Great 
Britain  with  those  of  other  countries,  to  show  that  the  former  were  not 


128  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

as  favorable  as  tlie  latter ;  and  lie  submitted  a  comparative  statement  of 
the  commercial  policy  of  Great  Britain  and  France  toward  us,  very 
different  from  that  of  Mr.  Smith.  He  considered  the  present  order  of 
things  in  France  a  settled  order,  and  that  the  trade  with  that  country 
would  maintain  its  present  position.  From  the  statement  he  presented, 
it  appeared  that  the  total  of  French  consumption  of  American  products 
exceeded  that  of  British  consumption  by  nearly  one  million  of  dollars. 

The  correspondence  between  the  British  minister  and  Mr.  Jefferson 
relating  to  negotiation,  was  reviewed,  and  the  conclusion  drawn  from  it 
was,  that  the  construction  put  by  Mr.  Hammond  on  his  powers  was  in- 
admissible, and  that  the  executive  had  equally  consulted  dignity  and 
prudence^  in  silently  dropping  the  subject  in  the  manner  they  did,  until 
he  should  produce  adequate  powers  in  the  accustomed  form. 

The  resolutions  were  supported  by  several  other  gentlemen.  It  was 
said  that  the  credit  given  by  British  merchants,  was  but  an  injury.  It 
encouraged  overtrading,  and  caused  a  heavy  balance  of  trade  against  us ; 
discouraged  domestic  manufactures ;  and  promoted  luxury.  The  policy 
of  Great  Britain  had  given  her  the  control  of  our  trade  ;  and  we  should 
endeavor  to  change  its  course.  By  buying  the  manufactures  of  France, 
a  portion  of  her  population  would  be  drawn  off  from  agricultural 
pursuits,  and  a  market  opened  for  our  produce.  The  temporary  disad- 
vantage of  this  policy  would  be  amply  repaid  by  permanent  benefits. 
Great  Britain  being  embarrassed  with  a  dangerous  foreign  war,  it  was 
deemed  a  favorable  time  to  induce  her  to  consent  to  some  relaxation  of 
the  rigorous  policy  she  has  hitherto  pursued. 

Several  other  speakers  also  opposed  the  resolutions.  They  would  not 
retaliate  injuries  under  the  cloak  of  commercial  regulations.  If  the 
resolutions  were  adopted,  it  should  be  because  they  would  promote  the 
public  interest.  Their  avowed  objects  were  to  favor  navigation  and  man- 
ufactures. If  navigation  was  to  have  additional  encouragement,  let  the 
duties  on  all  foreign  vessels  be  increased,  and  let  the  impositions  upon 
American  vessels  in  the  several  foreign  countries  be  met  by  equal  im- 
positions, instead  of  encouraging  one  foreign  nation  at  the  expense  of 
another.  Several  members  opposed  to  the  resolutions,  expressed  them- 
selves in  favor  of  a  navigation  act  which  should  meet  the  restrictions 
imposed  upon  our  vessels  by  other  nations,  with  corresponding  restric- 
tions upon  theirs. 

Nor  was  the  plan  likely  to  promote  domestic  manufactures.  This 
object  was  to  be  effected  by  laying  duties  on  the  particular  articles,  the 
manufacture  of  which  was  to  be  encouraged.  But  the  primary  motive 
of  the  resolutions  was  not  the  increase  of  our  agriculture,  manufactures, 
or  navigation,  but  to  humble  Great  Britain  and  build  up  France. 


129 

The  foregoing  sketch  of  this  debate,  though  imperfect,  presents  the  prin- 
cipal arguments  on  both  sides  of  the  question ;  some  of  which  have  been 
more  than  once  reproduced  in  the  discussions  of  the  same  or  kindred 
subjects  since  that  period. 

On  the  3d  of  Fel)ruary,  the  question  was  taken  upon  the  first  resolu- 
tion, and  carried  by  a  majority  of  five.  When  the  second  resolution, 
which  related  to  the  duties,  came  up  for  consideration,  Mr.  Fitzsimmons 
moved  an  amendment  designed  to  extend  its  operation  to  all  nations. 
This  motion  gave  way  to  one  from  Mr.  Nicholas,  restricting  its  effects  to 
Great  Britain.  The  subject  was  then  postponed  until  the  first  Monday  of 
March. 

On  the  5th  of  February,  the  house  took  up  a  report  made  in  pursuance 
of  a  resolution  previously  adopted,  declaring  ''that  a  naval  force  ade- 
quate to  the  protection  of  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  against  the 
Algerine  corsairs,  ought  to  be  provided."  The  bill  provided  for  the 
building  of  six  frigates ;  four  of  forty-four,  and  two  of  thirty-six  guns, 
each.  The  debate  on  this  subject  afi'ords  another  of  the  many  illustra- 
tions of  the  common  propensity  to  view  public  measures  through  a  party 
medium. 

The  proposed  force  was  said  to  be  insufficient  to  answer  the  intended 
purpose,  and  could  not  be  brought  into  immediate  use.  It  would  be 
cheaper  and  more  eligible  to  purchase  the  friendship  of  the  Algerines,  as 
other  nations  had  done.  Or,  if  this  was  impracticable,  we  might  pur- 
chase the  aid  of  foreign  powers  in  protecting  our  commerce.  But  the 
plan  was  most  objectionable,  as  being  the  commencement  of  a  permanent 
navy ;  the  expense  of  which  would  perpetuate  the  public  debt,  and  load 
the  people  with  insupportable  burdens.  We  had  gone  far  enough  in  this 
system  of  tyranny — that  of  governing  a  nation  by  debts.  The  oppres- 
sions of  the  people  of  England  and  France,  caused  in  great  part  by  their 
expensive  navy  establishments,  had  led  to  the  overthrow  of  the  monarchy 
of  the  one,  and  was  threatening  that  of  the  other. 

To  this  it  was  replied,  that  the  information  lately  communicated 
forbade  all  hope  of  purchasing  peace.  To  subsidize  other  nations  to  pro- 
tect our  commerce,  when  we  were  able  to  protect  it  ourselves,  was  dero- 
gatory to  the  national  character.  Besides,  nations  at  peace  with  Algiers 
would  be  unwilling  to  relinquish  that  peace  for  any  sum  we  would  pay 
them.  Nations  at  war  with  that  power,  had  sufficient  inducements  to 
check  the  depredations  of  their  enemy  without  subsidies.  With  a  navy 
of  our  own,  we  could  cooperate  effectually  with  any  power  that  might 
be  at  war  with  Algiers,  and  accomplish  what  could  not  be  done  by  a 
single  nation. 

Against  the  expense  of  the  contemplated  force,  must  be  offset  the 

9 


130  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN 

Talue  of  ships  and  cargoes  saved,  and  the  money  paid  in  extra  insurance 
and  for  the  ransom  of  captured  seamen.  But  a  far  more  important 
object  was,  to  prevent  an  increase  of  the  number  of  these  unfortunate 
captives.  It  was  a  matter  of  surprise  that  alarm  should  be  taken  at  a 
proposition  to  equip  a  small  armament,  especially  by  gentlemen  who  had 
just  advocated  the  improvement  of  our  navigation  as  a  measure  of 
defense,  at  the  hazard  of  a  commercial  war  with  Great  Britain. 

The  question  on  the  final  passage  of  the  bill  was  carried  by  a  majority 
of  eleven  votes ;  several  members  of  the  opposition  having  voted  in  the 
affirmative.  The  bill  was  concurred  in  by  the  senate,  and  approved  by 
the  president. 

The  British  order  of  the  8th  of  June,  1793,  designed  to  cut  off  sup- 
plies from  France,  has  been  noticed.  On  the  6th  of  November,  additional 
instructions  were  issued  to  the  commanders  of  British  "ships  of  war  and 
privateers,  directing  them  "  to  stop  and  detain  all  ships  laden  with  goods, 
the  produce  of  any  colony  belonging  to  France,  or  carrying  provisions  or 
other  supplies  for  the  use  of  such  colony,  and  to  bring  the  same,  with 
their  cargoes,  to  legal  adjudication  in  the  courts  of  British  admiralty." 
The  American  minister  in  England  had  no  notice  of  these  instructions 
until  the  last  of  December.  Under  this  new  order,  American  vessels 
engaged  in  French  West  India  trade,  were,  without  previous  notice, 
seized,  carried  into  British  West  India  ports,  and  some  of  them  con- 
demned. 

The  intelligence  of  these  instructions  increased  the  excitement  against 
Great  Britain ;  and  war  was  considered  a  probable  event.  On  the  12th  of 
March,  Mr.  Sedgwick  moved  a  series  of  resolutions,  proposing  to  raise  a 
military  force  of  15,000  men,  to  be  brought  into  actual  service  only  in 
case  war  should  break  out ;  and  to  be  drilled,  in  the  mean  time,  not 
exceeding  twenty-four  days  in  a  year,  for  which  they  were  to  receive  half 
a  dollar  per  day.  One  of  the  resolutions  authorized  the  president  to 
lay  an  embargo  for  forty  days,  if  he  should  deem  it  necessary.  The 
majority,  however,  determined  to  resume  the  consideration  of  Mr.  Madi- 
son's commercial  regulations.  A  debate  ensued,  no  less  animated  than 
the  first ;  but  the  house  came  to  no  decision. 

It  was  now  urged  against  this  plan,  that  it  was  not  adapted  to  the  present 
emergency.  In  the  event  of  a  war  it  would  be  useless.  Besides,  it  was 
a  measure  upon  which  the  public  sentiment  was  not  sufficiently  united. 
Its  tendency  was  to  provoke  war,  and  to  prevent  that  unanimity  in  which 
the  strength  of  the  country  consisted. 

In  support  of  the  resolutions,  it  was  said,  that  they  could  do  no  harm, 
even  in  case  of  war  ;  as  they  would  not  prevent  the  adoption  of  any  other 
measures  that  might  be  judged  necessary.     And  in  the  negotiation  of 


PROSPECTS    OF    WAR    WITH    GREAT   BRITAIN.  131 

peace,  they  would  serve  a  valuable  purpose  as  a  basis  for  such  nego- 
tiation. 

The  indications  of  war  were  now  strengthened  by  the  appearance  of 
what  was  said  to  be  a  speech  of  lord  Dorchester  at  Quebec,  on  the  1 0th 
of  February,  to  the  deputation  of  a  general  council  of  the  Western 
Indians,  held  at  the  rapids  of  the  Miami.  In  this  speech,  a  war  between 
the  United  States  and  G-reat  Britain  was  spoken  of  as  probable. 

The  resolutions  of  Mr.  Sedgwick  had  been  negatived ;  but  the  subject 
was  resumed  on  the  26th  of  March,  and  a  substitute  adopted,  laying  an 
embargo  for  thirty  days,  on  all  vessels  in  the  ports  of  the  United  States, 
bound  to  any  foreign  place.  This  measure  was  intended  to  save  our 
commerce  from  farther  exposure  to  depredation,  or  to  prevent  a  supply 
of  the  British  forces  in  the  West  Indies.  A  bill  was  passed  for  fortify- 
ing certain  ports  and  harbors ;  and  a  report  was  adopted,  providing 
an  addition  to  the  regular  military  force,  of  25,000  men,  and  authorizing 
the  requisition  of  80,000  militia  from  the  several  states,  to  be  ready  to 
march  at  a  moment's  warning. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  having  given  notice  of  a  resolution, 
declaring  that  "  provision  ought  to  ,be  made  for  the  indemnification  of 
all  citizens  of  the  United  States,  whose  vessels  or  cargoes  had  been  seized 
and  confiscated  by  any  of  the  belligerent  powers,  contrary  to  the  law  of 
nations,"  Mr.  Dayton  moved  a  resolution  for  the  sequestration  of  all 
debts  due  from  American  citizens  to  British  subjects,  and  to  compel 
their  payment  into  the  treasury  as  a  fund  for  the  proposed  indemnification. 

This  resolution  was  debated  with  great  vehemence.  -  The  peace  meas- 
ures of  the  government  were  severely  reprobated,  as  manifesting  a  disre- 
gard of  public  sentiment  in  behalf  of  France,  and  as  having  encouraged 
Great  Britain  to  new  aggressions.  The  resolution  was  opposed  as 
injurious  to  our  credit,  unjust,  and  of  dangerous  tendency. 

Before  any  question  was  taken  on  this  proposition,  information  was 
received  from  Mr.  Pinckney,  our  minister  at  London,  that  the  British 
order  of  November  6th  had  been  revoked  by  another  of  January  8th, 
instructing  British  cruisers  to  capture  only  those  neutral  vessels  which 
were  bound  with  the  produce  of  the  French  islands  on  a  direct  voyage  to 
Europe ;  or  whithersoever  bound,  if  such  produce  belonged  to  French 
subjects ;  thus  leaving  the  direct  trade  to  the  French  islands  free  to 
American  vessels  conveying  the  property  of  our  own  citizens. 

Mr  Pinckney  also  communicated  an  explanation  by  lord  Grenville, 
stating  that  the  objects  of  the  order  of  November  6th,  were  to  prevent 
apprehended  abuses  from  the  St:  Domingo  fleets  having  sailed  to  the 
United  States,  and  to  favor  a  contemplated  attack  upon  the  French 
West  India  islands ;  for  which  purposes  the  order  was  no  longer  neces- 


i'32  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

sary.  It  was  stated  also,  that  no  vessels  were  to  be  condemned  under 
that  order,  if,  on  trial,  they  should  not  be  found  to  have  violated  other 
laws.  The  concealment  of  the  first  order  from  our  minister  admitting  of 
no  justification,  and  both  the  orders  being  an  infringement  of  neutral 
rights,  the  explanation  was  unsatisfactory.  Nor  did  it  allay  the  public 
excitement.  The  minority  of  the  house,  and  all  who  refused  to  espouse 
the  French  cause,  were  represented  as  British  partisans.  One  of  the 
numerous  facts  illustrative  of  the  state  of  the  French  feeling,  at  this 
period,  is  the  following :  In  a  report  made  by  the  secretary  of  state, 
Mr.  Randolph,  relative  to  the  vexations  of  American  commerce,  by  offi- 
cers and  cruisers  of  the  belligerent  powers,  said  it  was  urged  that  the 
French  privateers  had  harassed  our  trade  no  less  than  those  of  the  British^ 
and  that  France  had  violated  her  treaty  with  us.  Although  he  had  been 
long  known  as  a  devoted  friend  of  France,  his  fidelity  to  the  cause  of 
France  and  liberty  was  suspected. 

Regulations  more  stringent  than  those  contemplated  by  Mr.  Madison's 
resolutions,  being  'deemed  necessary  at  the  present  juncture,  Mr.  Clark, 
of  New  Jersey,  on  the  7th  of  April,  moved  a  resolution  to  prohibit  all 
commercial  intercourse  with  Grreat  Britain,  so  far  as  respected  the  pro- 
ducts of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  until  her  government  should  make 
compensation  for  injuries  sustained  by  citizens  of  the  United  States  from 
British  armed  vessels,  and  until  the  western  posts  should  be  given  up. 
The  favor  with  which  this  proposition  was  received,  indicated  its  passage 
by  the  house ;  and  the  equal  division  of  parties  in  the  senate  rendered 
its  rejection  by  that  body  doubtful. 

Determined  to  leave  unemployed  no  means  consistent  with  the  national 
honor  to  prevent  war — an  event  quite  likely  to  follow  the  measure  pro- 
posed— the  president  concluded  to  make  an  efi"ort  at  negotiation. 
Accordingly,  on  the  16th  of  April,  he  nominated  to  the  senate  John  Jay 
as  envoy  extraordinary  of  the  United  States,  to  Great  Britain.  This 
nomination  was  opposed,  because  the  mission  was  deemed  impolitic  and 
unnecessary;  also  because  he  was  a  judge  of  the  supreme  court,  and  was 
withal  considered  too  friendly  to  Great  Britain,  having,  while  secretary  of 
foreign  affairs,  stated  certain  infractions  of  the  treaty  of  peace  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States.     The  nomination  was  confirmed,  however,  18  to  8. 

The  discussion  of  Clark's  resolutions  was  continued.  They  were  op- 
posed on  the  ground  that  they  would  be  an  obstacle  to  negotiation — that 
they  manifested  a  partiality  toward  one  of  the  belligerents,  incompatible 
with  a  state  of  neutrality.  On  the  other  hand  it  was  urged  that  the 
measure  could  not  lead  to  war ;  and  it  would  facilitate  instead  of  embar- 
rassing negotiation.  The  condition  on  which  the  intercourse  was  to  be 
restored — the  surrender  of  the  western  military  posts — having  been 
struck  out,  the  resolutions  were  adopted,  58  to  38.     A  bill  conformin/ir  *> 


PROSPECTS    OF    WAR    WITH   GREAT    BRITAIN.  133 

the  same  was  passed  by  the  house  by  the  same  vote ;  but  was  defeated 
in  the  senate  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  vice-president. 

As  the  success  of  Mr.  Jay's  contemplated  mission  was  considered 
doubtful,  and  as  a  state  of  war  was  likely  to  follow  the  failure  of  nego- 
tiation, it  was  deemed  proper  to  prepare  for  such  event,  by  carrying  into 
effect  the  measure  previously  reported.  The  raising  of  25,000  more  was 
negatived.  The  proposed  detachment  of  the  80,000  minute-men,  and 
other  necessary  preparations  for  war  were  authorized.  Additional  taxes 
would  of  course  become  necessary.  But  in  selecting  the  objects  of  tax- 
ation there  was  a  difference  of  opinion.  The  bill,  as  passed,  imposed  ad- 
ditional duties  on  imports,  taxes  on  pleasure  carriages,  snuff,  refined 
sugar,  on  sales  at  auction,  and  on  licenses  for  retailing  liquors.  It  re- 
ceived much  opposition.  A  direct  tax,  (land  tax,)  had  been  reported  by 
the  committee,  and  had  some  strenuous  advocates  among  the  opposition 
members.  It  was  declared  to  be  a  less  objectionable  tax  than  any  other. 
They  were  in  favor  of  raising  the  whole  sum  by  direct  taxes  and  duties 
on  imports.  The  tax  on  carriages  was  pronounced  unconstitutional ;  and 
its  payment  was  afterward  refused  in  Virginia,  until  the  question  wag 
decided  by  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States. 

At  this  session,  a  second  inquiry  into  the  ofl&cial  conduct  of  the  secre- 
tary of  the  treasury,  was  moved  by  Mr.  Giles,  the  mover  in  the  former 
case.  The  motion  was  agreed  to  without  opposition,  Mr.  Hamilton  him- 
self being  known  to  desire  the  inquiry.  After  a  laborious  investigation 
by  the  committee,  of  which  Mr.  Griles  was  the  head,  no  cause  of  censure 
was  found.  The  result  was  deemed  the  more  honorable  to  the  secretary, 
as  the  inquiry  was  conducted  by  his  political  opponents. 

A  law  was  also  passed,  prohibiting  the  exercise,  within  the  United 
States,  of  the  powers  assumed  by  G-enet,  of  enlisting  men  and  arming 
vessels,  setting  on  foot  military  expeditions  against  nations  at  peace  with 
the  United  States,  and  authorizing  the  president  to  employ  force  in 
executing  the  laws.  Notwithstanding  the  favorable  responses  o^  both 
houses  to  that  part  of  the  president's  speech  at  the  opening  of  the  session, 
relating  to  his  efforts  to  maintain  neutrality,  this  bill  met  with  a 
determined  opposition.  It  originated  in  the  senate,  where  it  was  saved 
only  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  vice-president.  In  the  house,  as  in  the 
senate,  motions  were  made  to  strike  out  some  of  its  clauses  deemed  most 
essential ;  and  with  respect  to  that  which  prohibited  the  condemnation 
and  sale,  within  the  United  States,  of  prizes  of  the  subjects  of  nations 
at  peace  with  us,  the  motion  was  successful.     This  law  is  still  in  force. 

On  the  9th  of  June,  the  third  congress  closed  its  first  session,  and  ad- 
journed to  the  first  Monday  of  November.  The  most  important  events 
that  occurred  in  the  intermediate  time,  were  the  defeat  »of  the  western 
Indians  by  General  Wayne,  and  the  suppression  of  the  "  whisky    insur- 


134  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

rection,"  so  called,  in  western  Pennsylvania,  which  have  been  mentioned 
in  a  preceding  chapter. 

The  release  of  a  number  of  American  vessels  captured  under  the 
British  order  of  November  6th,  together  with  a  declaration  by  lord 
G-renville  in  the  British  parliament,  of  friendly  designs  toward  the 
United  States,  and  the  disavowal,  by  that  government,  of  having  en- 
couraged Indian  hostilities,  slightly  checked  the  popular  indignation, 
and  encouraged  the  hope  of  a  peaceable  settlement  of  the  disputes  be- 
tween the  two  countries. 

Mr.  Jay  embarked  on  his  mission  on  the  1 3th  of  May.  He  was  re- 
garded by  his  political  friends  as  eminently  qualified  for  the  trust  con- 
fided to  him.  For  purity  of  .character,  disinterested  patriotism,  sound 
judgment,  and  diplomatic  experience,  he  was  probably  unsurpassed. 
But,  although  hopes  were  indulged  of  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the 
difficulties  with  Great  Britain,  these  hopes  were  moderated  by  her  well 
known  unwillingness  to  relinquish  any  advantage,  of  which  she  had  re- 
cently given  fresh  evidence  by  her  obstinate  refusal  to  enter  into  a  com- 
mercial treaty.  The  principal  objects  of  the  mission  were,  restitution 
for  spoliations  of  American  commerce,  and  the  fulfillment  of  the  treaty 
of  peace.  These  two  objects  obtained,  a  treaty  of  commerce  was  then 
to  be  proposed. 

The  instructions  to  Mr.  Jay  acquit  the  president  of  the  charge  of  un- 
friendliness to  France  and  partiality  for  Great  Britain.  As  it  was 
deemed  not  improbable  that  the  British  government  would  ofi"er  induce- 
ments to  the  United  States  to  dissolve  their  alliance  with  France,  Mr. 
Jay  was  instructed  to  say  "  that  the  United  States  would  not  derogate 
from  their  treaties  and  engagements  with  France."  To  the  same  effect 
were  the  instructions  to  Mr.  Monroe,  our  minister  to  France,  appointed 
soon  after  Mr.  Jay's  departure.  Secretary  Randolph,  in  his  letter  of 
instructions,  says :  "  The  president  has  been  an  early  and  decided  friend 
of  the  French  revolution  ;  and  whatever  reasons  there  may  have  been  to 
suspend  an  opinion  upon  some  of  its  important  transactions,  yet  is  he 
immutable  in  his  wishes  for  its  accomplishment.  *  *  *  From  Messrs. 
Genet  and  Fauchet  we  have  uniformly  learned  that  France  did  not  desire 
ns  to  depart  from  neutrality ;  and  it  would  have  been  unwise  to  ask  us 
to  do  otherwise.  For  our  ports  are  open  to  her  prizes,  while  they  are 
shut  to  those  of  Great  Britain ;  and  supplies  of  grain  could  not  be  for- 
warded to  France  with  so  much  certainty,  were  we  at  war,  as  they  can 
even  now,  notwithstanding  the  British  restrictions.  We  have  therefore 
pursued  neutrality  with  faithfulness.  We  mean  to  retain  the  same  line, 
of  conduct  in  future  ;  and  to  remove  all  jealousy  as  to  Mr.  Jay's  mission 
to  London,  you  may  say  that  he  is  positively  forbidden  to  weaken  the 
engagements  between  this  country  and  France." 


DECLINE    OF    DEMOCRATIC    SOCIETIES.  135 


CHAPTER   X. 

DECLINE    OF    DEMOCRATIC    SOCIETIES. FUNDING    SYSTEM  CONSUMMATED. 

RESIGNATION    OF    HAMILTON    AND    KNOX. THE    JAY    TREATY. TREATIES 

WITH    SPAIN    AND    ALGIERS. MONROE    RECALLED. 

Congress  had  adjourned  to  the  3d  of  November,  179 4;  but  no  quorum 
appeared  in  the  senate  until  the  18th. 

In  his  address,  delivered  the  next  day,  the  president  gave  a  detailed 
account  of  the  insurrection  in  Pennsylvania,  and  of  the  measures  taken 
to  reduce  the  insurgents  to  submission ;  and  he  strongly  intimated  that, 
in  tracing  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  insurrection,  it  would  be  found 
to  have  "been  fomented  by  combinations  ofmen.,  who,  careless  of  conse- 
quences, and  disregarding  the  unerring  truth,  that  those  who  rouse,  can 
not  always  appease  a  civil  convulsion,  have  disseminated,  from  an  igno- 
rance or  perversion  of  facts,  suspicions,  jealousies,  and  accusations  of  the 
whole  government."  By  the  "  combinations  of  men,"  were  meant  the 
democratic  societies  formed  under  the  auspices  of  Genet, 

The  senate,  in  answer,  responded  to  the  opinion  of  the  president  as  to 
the  effects  of  these  "  self-created  societies,"  whose  proceedings  tended  to 
disorganize  our  government,  and  had  "  been  instrumental  in  misleading 
our  fellow-citizens  into  the  scene  of  insurrection."  This  part  of  the 
address,  however,  was  not  adopted  without  strong  opposition.  The 
answer  of  the  house  made  no  allusion  whatever  to  this  subject,  nor  to  the 
success  of  G-en.  Wayne,  nor  to  the  foreign  policy  of  the  executive ;  all  of 
which  were  approved  by  the  senate.  The  interference  with  the  proposed 
commercial  regulations,  by  the  appointment  of  a  minister  to  England, 
was  presumed  to  be  the  cause  of  the  omission  to  notice  the  last  of  the 
subjects  mentioned. 

The  thrust  of  the  president  at  the  democratic  societies  produced  con- 
siderable excitement,  and  perhaps  contributed  to  accelerate  their  decline, 
which,  however,  was  owing  chiefly  to  causes  before  mentioned.  Robes- 
pierre was  overthrown ;  and  his  clubs  were  unable  to  maintain  the'  con- 
test for  supremacy  with  the  French  convention.  A  vindication  of  the 
clubs  would  have  been  nothing  less  than  opposition  to  the  government 
of  France ;  a  position  which  the  republicans  of  the  United  States  did 
not  wish  to  assume.  Hence  the  societies  soon  disappeared.  It  ought 
perhaps  to  be  here  stated,  that  the  president's  unfavorable  opinion  of  these 
societies  was  not  wholly  occasioned  by  their  attacks  upon  his  administra- 
tion.    Judge  Marshall  says  :  "  So  early  as  1786,  in  a  letter  to  a  favorite 


136  THE    AMEllICAN    STATESMAN. 

nephew,  who  had  engaged  with  the  ardor  of  youth  in  a  political  society. 
Gen.  Washington  stated,  in  decided  terms,  his  objections  to  such  insti- 
tutions, and  the  abuses  of  which  they  were  peculiarly  susceptible." 

The  president  again  called  the  attention  of  the  house  to  the  subject 
of  the  public  debt,  and  recommended  the  adoption  of  a  "  definitive  plan 
for  its  redemption."  On  the  1 5th  of  January,  Mr.  Hamilton  reported  a 
plan  for  this  purpose,  and  forcibly  urged  its  adoption.  He  said  there 
was  "  danger  to  every  government  from  a  progressive  accumulation  of 
debt.  A  tendency  to  it  is  perhaps  the  natural  disease  of  all  govern- 
ments; and  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  any  thing  more  likely  than  this  to 
lead  to  great  convulsive  revolutions  of  empires.  *  *  *  There  is  a 
general  propensity  in  those  who  administer  the  affairs  of  government, 
founded  in  the  constitution  of  man,  to  shift  oflf  the  burden  from  the  pre- 
sent to  a  future  day ;  a  propensity  which  may  be  expected  to  be  strong 
in  proportion  as  the  form  of  the  state  is  popular."  At  whom  the  follow- 
ing remarks  were  aimed,  the  house  could  not  fail  to  understand.  "  To 
extinguish  a  debt  which  exists,  and  to  avoid  contracting  more,  are  ideas 
almost  always  favored  by  public  feeling  and  opinion ;  but  to  pay  taxes 
for  the  one  or  the  other  purpose,  which  are  the  only  means  to  avoid  the 
evil,  is  always  more  or  less  unpopular.  Hence  it  is  no  uncommon  specu- 
tacle  to  see  the  same  man  clamoring  for  occasions  of  expense,  when  they 
happen  to  be  in  unison  with  the  present  humor  of  the  community,  well 
or  ill  directed,  declaiming  against  a  public  debt,  and  for  the  reduction 
of  it ;  yet  vehement  against  every  plan  of  taxation,  which  is  proposed  to 
discharge  old  debts,  or  to  avoid  new  ones  by  defraying  the  expenses  of 
exigencies  as  they  emerge." 

An  act  conforming  nearly  to  the  plan  reported  was  passed.  It  estab- 
lished a  sinking  fund,  consisting  of  the  surplus  revenues,  of  bank  divi- 
dends, and  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands ;  together  with  a  few 
other  items.  The  permanent  appropriation  of  the  duties  on  domestic 
spirits  and  on  stills,  being  strongly  objected  to,  these  temporary  taxes 
were  to  be  continued  only  till  1801  ;  the  others  were  permanently  pledged 
to  the  pa^^ment  of  the  public  debt ;  for  which  purpose  this  fund  was  to 
be  vested,  as  property  in  trust,  in  the  commissioners  of  the  sinking  fund. 
By  this  act  was  consummated  the  funding  system  of  the  secretary  of  the 
treasury,  under  which  the  whole  national  debt  was  ultimately  extin- 
guished. 

On  the  31st  of  January,  1795,  Mr.  Hamilton  resigned,  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Oliver  Wolcott,  of  Connecticut.  Gen.  Knox  had  resigned  on 
the  first  day  of  the  month,  and  Timothy  Pickering,  of  Massachusetts, 
then  postmaster-general,  was  appointed  as  his  successor.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Joseph  Habersham,  of  Georgia,  as  postmaster-general. 


THE   JAY    TREATY.  137 

On  the  3d  of  March,  the  constitutional  term  of  the  third  congress 
expired.  This  session  was  less  distinguished  for  the  number  of  its 
important  acts — though  some  of  them  were  really  such — than  for  the 
warmth  and  acrimony  of  its  debates. 

On  the  7th  of  March,  1795,  the  president  received  "  a  treaty  of  amity, 
commerce,  and  navigation,  between  his  Britannic  majesty  and  the  United 
States,"  which  had  been  concluded  by  Mr.  Jay  and  lord  Grenville,  on 
the  19th  of  November.  On  the  8th  of  June,  the  treaty  was  submitted 
to  the  senate,  specially  convened  for  this  purpose.  The  first  of  the  two 
primary  objects  of  negotiation,  namely,  indemnity  to  American  merchants 
for  the  illegal  capture  of  their  property  under  British  orders,  was  secured 
by  the  treaty.  The  second  of  these  objects  was  partially  attained.  The 
western  posts  were  to  be  surrendered  by  the  1st  of  June,  1796.  The 
negroes  carried  away  by  the  British  commander  not  being  deemed  by  the 
British  negotiator  of  a  class  to  which  the  prohibition  of  the  treaty 
applied,  no  compensation  for  them  was  allowed.  The  British  creditors 
were  to  be  compensated  for  losses  caused  by  laws  of  any  of  the  states 
obstructing  the  collection  of  debts  contracted  prior  to  the  revolutionary 
war. 

The  citizens  of  each  country  were  to  enjoy  the  right  to  hold  and  con- 
vey lands  in  the  territories  of  the  other.  Debts  contracted,  or  engage- 
ments made  by  the  citizens  of  the  one  with  those  of  the  other,  were  not  to 
be  impaired  in  case  of  national  diiferences.  Free  trade  with  the  Indians, 
except  within  the  limits  of  the  Hudson's  bay  company;  and  the  free  use 
of  the  Mississippi  river,  were  to  be  enjoyed  by  both  parties.  So  far,  the 
provisions  of  the  treaty  were  to  be  permanent. 

The  other  articles,  relating  to  commerce  and  navigation  were  limited 
to  two  years  after  the  termination  of  the  existing  European  war,  and  in 
any  case,  to  a  term  not  exceeding  twelve  years.  In  the  trade  between  the 
United  States  and  the  British  dominions  in  Europe  and  the  East  Indies, 
the  vessels  and  cargoes  of  each  party  were  to  be  admitted  into  the  ports 
of  the  other,  on  terms  of  equality  with  the  most  favored  nation ;  the 
British  government  reserving  the  right  to  countervail  American  discri- 
minating tonnage  and  import  duties.  A  direct  trade  with  the  British 
West  Indies  was  permitted  in  American  vessels  of  a  burden  not  exceed- 
ing seventy  tons,  and  in  the  products  of  the  United  States  and  those  of 
the  islands.  But  this  privilege,  restricted  as  it  was,  was  only  to  be 
obtained  by  yielding  the  right  of  carrying  molasses,  sugar,  coffee,  cocoa, 
or  cotton,  either  from  the  United  States,  or  the  islands,  to  any  other 
country. 

The  treaty  also  enumerated  certain  articles  which  were  to  be  deemed 
contraband  of  war.     Provisions  and  other  articles  not  usually  contraband, 


138  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

if  they  should  at  any  time  become  so,  according  to  the  kw  of  nations, 
were  not  to  be  confiscated,  but  paid  for  by  the  captors  or  the  government. 
Vessels  having  made  prizes  of  the  property  of  the  citizens  of  either  party, 
were  not  allowed  a  shelter  in  the  ports  of  the  other ;  but  this  privilege 
was  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  ships  of  war,  or  privateers  of  the  contracting 
parties. 

The  treaty  was  far  from  meeting  the  wishes  either  of  the  president,  or 
of  the  senate ;  yet,  considering  the  tenacity  with  which  Great  Britain 
clung  to  a  system  to  which  she  owed  her  commercial  importance,  more 
favorable  terms  could  hardly  have  been  expected.  The  most  objection- 
able provision  was  that  in  the  12th  article,  which  related  to  the  West 
India  trade.  Among  the  commodities,  the  carrying  of  which  to  Europe 
in  American  vessels  was  to  be  prohibited,  was  cotton.  This  article,  of 
which  the  United  States  had  scarcely  produced  a  supply  for  home  con- 
sumption, had  just  begun  to  be  exported  ;  a  fact  said  to  have  been  un- 
known to  Mr.  Jay.  As  this  product  was  soon  to  become  one  of  the 
principal  exports  from  this  country,  and  as  the  relinquishment  of  the 
right  to  transport  the  other  articles  above  mentioaed,  was  a  sufficient 
sacrifice  for  the  restricted  West  India  trade  allowed  by  the  treaty,  the 
senate  concluded  to  exclude  this  provision  in  the  ratification,  and  recom- 
mended the  addition  of  a  clause  suspending  its  operation ;  leaving  for 
future  negotiation,  this  question,  with  that  of  the  impressment  of  Ameri- 
can seamen,  and  others,  upon  which  the  parties  had  been  unable  to  come 
to  a  satisfactory  agreement.  In  this  shape,  the  senate,  by  a  vote  of  20 
to  10,  a  bare  constitutional  majority,  advised  the  ratification. 

The  president,  considering  the  defects  of  the  treaty  to  be  overbalanced 
by  its  advantages,  had  resolved  to  ratify  it,  if  it  should  be  approved  by 
the  senate.  This  determination  was  also  approved  by  the  members  of 
the  cabinet,  with  one  exception.  But  the  recommendation,  by  the  senate, 
of  the  suspending  clause,  required  consideration.  It  was  not  clear  to 
the  mind  of  the  president,  that  the  senate  could  advise  and  consent  to  aji 
article  that  had  not  been  laid  before  them ;  or  that  he  could  ratify  the 
treaty  until  the  proposed  clause  had  been  added.  The  doubts  of  the 
president,  however,  were  soon  removed.  But  before  signing  the  treaty, 
an  additional  cause  of  delay  arose.  It  was  stated  in  English  papers, 
though  not  officially,  that  the  order  of  the  8th  of  June,  1793,  for  th« 
seizure  of  provisions  going  to  French  ports,  had  been  renewed.  Great 
Britain,  it  will  be  recollected,  claimed  the  right  of  making  provisions 
contraband,  with  a  view  to  reduce  an  enemy,  This  right  the  American 
government  did  not  concede,  except  in  cases  of  blockade.  The  president, 
therefore,  deferred  for  a  time  the  execution  of  his  design,  and  directed  a 
memorial  to  the  British  government  against  this  order  to  be  prepared, 


THE   JAY   TREATY.  •  139 

together  with  instructions  to  our  minister  to  continue  negotiations  upon 
matters  yet  unadjusted.     He  then  (July  15th)  left  for  Mount  Vernon. 

No  preceding  measure  of  the  administration,  probably,  encountered  a 
more  furious  opposition  than  this.  Public  meetings  were  held,  not  only 
in  the  cities,  but  in  country  towns,  to  condemn  the  treaty.  Essays  were 
written,  in  which  it  was  closely  scrutinized  and  severely  reprobated.  In 
Philadelphia,  an  attempt  was  made  to  burn  Mr.  Jay  and  the  ratifying 
senators  in  effigy ;  and  copies  of  the  treaty  were  carried  before  the  doors 
of  the  British  minister,  British  consul,  and  Mr.  Bingham,  a  senator  who 
had  voted  for  its  ratification,  and  burned  amid  the  huzzas  of  the  multi- 
tude. Subsequently,  in  Boston,  an  effigy  of  Mr.  Jay  was  burned  in  the 
street. 

The  president  returned  to  Philadelphia  on  the  11th  of  August;  and 
the  next  day  the  question  of  ratification  was  brought  before  the  cabinet. 
Mr.  Kandolph,  who  had  before  recommended  a  suspension  of  the  ratifi- 
cation until  the  provision  order  should  be  repealed,  now  gave  it  as  his 
opinion  that  the  treaty  ought  not  to  be  ratified  while  the  war  continued 
between  Great  Britain  and  France.  The  other  three  members  concur- 
ring with  the  president  in  the  expediency  of  immediate  ratification,  with 
a  memorial  against  the  provision  order,  the  treaty,  with  the  suspension 
clause,  was  signed  on  the  14th,  and  Mr.  Randolph  was  directed  to  com- 
plete the  memorial  and  instructions,  then  remaining  unfinished.  This 
course  was  successful.  The  order  was  revoked,  and  the  ratifications  of 
the  treaty  were  exchanged. 

It  was  hoped  by  the  president,  that  the  ratification  of  the  treaty 
would  check  the  violence  with  which  it  had  been  assailed.  But  it  seemed 
rather  to  increase  the  bitterness  of  the  opposition.  To  weaken  the  sup- 
port which  the  treaty  was  known  to  derive  from  the  president's  personal 
popularity,  his  merits  as  a  soldier  and  statesman  were  disparaged.  His 
private  character  did  not  escape  detraction.  He  was  accused  of  having 
overdrawn  the  amount  of  salary,  and  appropriated  the  money  to  his 
private  use.  In  authorizing  the  negotiation  of  a  treaty  without  pre- 
viously consulting  the  senate,  he  had  violated  the  constitution,  for  which 
he  ought  to  be  impeached. 

Notwithstanding  the  increased  virulence  of  the  opposition,  the  number 
of  the  friends  of  the  treaty  also  appeared  to  increase.  The  commercial 
community  generally  were  in  its  favor.  Public  meetings  were  held  in 
many  parts  of  the  country.  Reflecting  men,  governed  by  judgment 
rather  than  partisan  zeal,  sustained  the  administration.  Commerce, 
notwithstanding  the  restrictions  under  which  it  labored,  was  rapidly  in- 
creasing ;  and  it  was  deemed  unwise  to  jeopard  the  public  prosperity  by 
a  course  of  policy  likely  to  result  in  a  war,  which,  though  perhaps  justi- 
fiable, was  not  indispensable  to  the  maintenance  of  the  national  honor. 


140 


THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


During  the  ensuing  fall  and  winter,  the  subject  of  tLe  treaty  was  in- 
troduced into  the  legislatures  of  a  majority  of  the  states,  for  the  purpose 
of  condemnation  or  approval.  In  one  or  two  only  of  these  states,  it  is 
believed,  did  resolutions  disapproving  the  treaty  pass  both  house^.  By 
the  legislature  of  Virginia,  resolutions  were  adopted  proposing  several 
amendments  to  the  constitution,  abridging  the  power  of  the  senate,  and 
reducing  the  term  of  office  to  three  years  ;  and  requiring  the  concurrence 
of  the  house  of  representatives  in  making  treaties ;  but  we  are  not  aware 
that  the  proposition  met  with  a  favorable  response  in  any  state :  by 
several  of  the  state  legislatures  they  were  discountenanced  by  a  formal 
vote. 

In  August,  1795,  Mr.  Randolph  resigned  the  office  of  secretary  of 
state,  and  that  of  attorney-general  was  vacated  by  the  death  of  Mr. 
Bradford.  Both  these  offices  continued  vacant  until  the  next  annual 
meeting  of  the  senate.  On  the  10th  of  December,  Timothy  Pickering, 
secretary  of  war,  by  whom  the  duties  of  secretary  of  state  also  had  been 
performed,  was  appointed  to  the  head  of  the  state  department ;  and 
Charles  Lee,  of  Virginia,  was  on  the  same  day  appointed  attorney- 
general.  On  the  27th  of  January,  1796,  James  M'Henry,  of  Maryland, 
was  appointed  secretary  of  war,  in  the  place  of  Mr.  Pickering. 

On  the  3d  of  August,  1795,  a  satisfactory  treaty  was  concluded  with 
the  north-western  Indians. 

On  the  27th  of  October,  after  a  negotiation  of  about  fifteen  years,  a 
treaty  was  also  concluded  with  Spain  ;  by  which  the  claim  of  the  United 
States  as  to  the  Florida  boundary,  and  the  right  to  a  free  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi  river,  were  both  conceded.  In  defining  neutral  rights, 
the  treaty,  as  that  with  France,  provided  that  provisions  and  naval  stores 
were  not  to  be  deemed  contraband,  and  that  free  ships  should  make  free 
goods.  And  compensation  was  to  be  made  to  American  citizens  for 
property  illegally  captured  by  Spanish  cruisers. 

A  treaty  of  peace  with  the  dey  of  Algiers  was  made  on  the  5th  of 
September,  and  the  American  captives  released  from  their  cruel  im- 
prisonment. The  ransom  of  these  prisoners  was  effected  at  an  expense 
of  about  one  million  of  dollars. 

The  fourth  congress  met  on  the  7th  of  December,  1795.  In  his 
speech,  delivered  the  next  day,  the  president  congratulated  the  country 
on  the  restoration  of  peace  with  the  western  Indians ;  on  the  favorable 
advices  from  Algiers  and  Spain,  the  treaties  not  having  as  yet  been  re- 
ceived ;  and  on  the  general  internal  tranquillity,  the  rapid  increase  of 
population,  and  the  unexampled  prosperity  of  our  agriculture,  commerce, 
and  manufactures,  the  molestations  of  our  trade  having  been  over- 
balanced by  the  aggregate  benefits  derived  from  a  neutral  position.     The 


PRESENTATION    OF    THE    FRENCH    COLORS.  141 

decision  of  the  British  government  with  respect  to  the  amended  treaty, 
being  yet  unknown,  would  be  communicated  when  received.  Subjects 
of  legislation  to  which  he  called  the  attention  of  congress,  were,  a  review 
of  the  military  establishment,  a  more  complete  organization  of  the  militia, 
and  more  effectual  provisions  for  the  protection  of  the  Indians  from  the 
violence  of  the  lawless  part  of  our  frontier  inhabitants,  as  being  neces- 
sary to  prevent  destructive  retaliations  by  the  Indians. 

The  answer  of  the  senate,  expressing  their  approval  of  the  foreign 
policy  of  the  president,  was  adopted,  14  to  8. 

In  the  house,  the  answer  reported  by  the  committee,  declared  the  un- 
diminished confidence  of  the  people  in  the  president.  This  declaration 
was  objected  to  as  untrue ;  and  before  a  direct  vote  was  taken  upon  it, 
the  address  was  recommitted,  and  so  modified  as  to  render  it  acceptable 
to  the  majority,  which,  as  in  the  last  preceding  house,  was  opposed  to 
the  administration.  The  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  though  not  directly 
disapproved,  was  treated  in  a  manner  indicating  the  sense  of  the  majority. 

On  the  first  of  January,  1796,  an  occurrence  of  some  interest  took 
place  at  the  seat  of  government.  Mr.  Monroe,  it  will  be  recollected, 
was  appointed  minister  to  France  in  the  summer  of  1794.  Soon  after 
his  arrival,  he  presented  to  the  national  convention  the  flag  of  the  United 
States,  as  a  token  of  the  friendship  and  good  will  of  his  country  toward 
the  French  republic.  Fauchet  having  been  recalled,  Adet,  his  successor, 
who  arrived  in  the  United  States  in  June,  1795,  was  directed  to  recip- 
rocate this  expression  of  friendship,  by  presenting  to  the  American 
government  the  flag  of  France.  This  ceremony  had  been  delayed  until 
the  first  of  January,  when  the  flag  was  publicly  delivered  to  the  presi- 
dent, with  a  letter  from  the  French  committee  of  safety,  expressing  the 
joy  with  which  they  had  received  the  declarations  which  the  American 
minister  had  made  of  the  friendly  dispositions  of  his  government  toward 
the  French  republic. 

In  his  address  to  the  president,  Mr.  Adet  said  France  recognized  the 
people  of  the  United  States  as  "  friends  and  brothers.  Long  accus- 
tomed to  regard  them  as  her  most  faithful  allies,  she  sought  to  draw 
closer  the  ties  already  formed  in  the  fields  of  America,  under  the 
auspices  of  victory,  over  the  ruins  of  tyranny." 

The  president,  in  reply,  expressed  his  sympathies  and  those  of  his 
fellow-citizens  for  the  people  of  France,  and  congratulated  them  on  the 
recent  substitution  of  a  republican  constitution  for  the  revolutionary 
government,  and  concluded  thus  :  "  I  receive,  sir,  with  lively  sensibility, 
the  symbol  of  the  triumphs  and  of  the  enfranchisements  of  your  nation, 
the  colors  of  France,  which  you  have  now  presented  to  the  United 
States.     Tl]^  transaction  will  be  announced  to  congress,  and  the  colors 


142  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

will  be  deposited  with  the  archives  of  the  United  States,  which  are  at 
once  the  evidence  and  the  memorials  of  their  freedom  and  independence  : 
may  these  be  perpetual !  and  may  the  friendship  of  the  two  republics  be 
commensurate  with  their  existence  !" 

The  colors  of  France,  and  the  letter  of  the  committee  of  safety,  with 
the  address  of  Adet,  and  the  president's  answer,  were  all  transmitted  to 
congress. 

On  the  1st  of  March,  1796,  the  president  sent  to  the  house  a  copy  of 
the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  which  had  been  returned,  in  the  form  ad- 
vised by  the  senate,  ratified  by  his  Britannic  majesty,  with  the  informa- 
tion that  the  treaty  had  been  proclaimed  as  the  law  of  the  land.  The 
debate  to  which  this  communication  gave  rise  was  exceedingly  animated. 
Upon  no  other  measure  of  the  administration,  perhaps,  had  the  public 
mind  been  more  sensibly  agitated,  or  party  passion  raised  to  a  higher 
pitch.  It  was  viewed  by  many  as  virtually  a  question  of  peace  or  war ; 
and  what  gave  it  additional  importance  was,  that  it  involved  the  consti- 
tutional questions,  whether  the  assent  of  the  house  was  essential  to  the 
obligation  of  a  treaty,  and  ivhether  the  president  had  a  right  to  negotiate 
a  treaty  of  commerce. 

The  first  discussion  arose  upon  a  motion  of  Edward  Livingston,  of 
New  York,  to  request  the  president  to  lay  before  the  house  a  copy  of 
his  instructions  to  Mr.  Jay,  with  the  correspondence  and  other  docu- 
ments relating  to  the  treaty.  Several  days  afterward,  the  resolution 
was  amended  by  the  mover,  by  adding,  "  excepting  such  of  the  papers 
as  any  existing  negotiation  may  render  improper  to  be  disclosed,"  The 
propriety  of  this  call  was  questioned  by  the  minority,  unless  there  was 
an  intimation  to  impeach  the  president  or  Mr.  Jay.  But  the  principal 
topic  of  discussion  was  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  treaty-making 
power ;  or  the  right  of  the  house  to  refuse  the  means  of  carrying  a 
treaty  into  effect. 

It  was  argued  by  the  friends  of  the  administration,  that  a  treaty  was 
complete,  according  to  the  constitution,  when,  by  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  senate,  it  had  received  the  signature  of  the  executive;  and  that 
the  non-compliance,  on  the  part  of  the  house,  with  its  stipulations,  was 
a  breach  of  a  solemn  contract,  and  a  violation  of  the  public  faith.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  was  maintained,  that  the  power  to  make  treaties,  if 
extended  to  every  object,  would  interfere  with  the  constitutional  powers 
of  congress.  Hence,  treaties  requiring  the  appropriation  of  money,  or 
any  other  act  of  congress  to  carry  them  into  effect,  could  not  have  force 
without  consent  of  the  house  ;  therefore  the  refusing  of  such  appropria- 
tion or  law  was  no  violation  of  an  existing  obligation.  The  debate  was 
continued  until  the  24th  of  March,  when  the  resolution  was  adopted,  62 
to  37. 


DISCUSSION    ON    THE    JAY    TREATY.  143 

The  president  was  now  placed  in  a  delicate  situation.  The  house,  not 
having  been  made  by  the  constitution  a  part  of  the  treaty-making  power, 
had  no  right  to  demand  the  papers  relating  to  the  negotiation.  To  com- 
ply with  the  call  would  be  to  concede  this  right,  and  to  establish  a 
dangerous  precedent.  A  non-compliance,  on  the  contrary,  would  increase 
the  popular  clamor  against  the  administration,  and  confirm  the  suspicions 
of  many,  that  there  were  facts  connected  with  the  negotiation  which  the 
president  feared  to  expose.  As  there  was  notliing  in  the  whole  affair 
which  he  wished  to  conceal — indeed  all  the  papers  affecting  the  negotia- 
tion had  already  been  laid  before  the  senate — the  question  was  simply 
one  of  popularity  or  duty. 

The  answer  declining  a  compliance  with  the  call,  was  returned  on  the 
30th  of  March.  After  disclaiming  "  a  disposition  to  withhold  any  thing 
which  the  constitution  has  enjoined  it  upon  the  president  as  a  duty  to 
give,  or  which  could  be  required  of  him  by  either  house  of  congress  as  a 
right,"  he  proceeds  to  argue  the  question  :  "  The  nature  of  foreign  nego- 
tiations requires  caution,  and  their  success  often  depends  on  secrecy. 
The  necessity  of  such  caution  and  secrecy  was  one  cogent  reason  for 
vesting  the  power  of  making  treaties  in  the  president,  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  senate,  the  principle  on  which  that  body  was  formed 
confining  it  to  a  small  number  of  members.  To  admit,  then,  a  right  in 
the  house  of  representatives  to  demand,  and  to  have,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  all  the  papers  respecting  a  negotiation  with  a  foreign  power,  would 
be  to  establish  a  dangerous  precedent.     *     *     * 

"  Having  been  a  member  of  the  general  convention,  and  knowing  the 
principles  on  which  the  constitution  was  formed,  I  have  ever  entertained 
but  one  opinion  upon  this  subject ;  and  from  the  first  establishment 
of  the  government  to  this  moment,  my  conduct  has  exemplified  that 
opinion  :  That  the  power  of  making  treaties  is  exclusively  vested  in  the 
president,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate,  provided 
two-thirds  of  the  senate  concur  ;  and  that  every  treaty  so  made  and  pro- 
mulgated, is  thenceforward  the  law  of  the  land.  It  is  thus  that  the 
treaty-making  power  has  been  understood  by  foreign  nations  :  and  in  all  the 
treaties  made  with  them,  we  have  declared,  and  they  have  believed,  that, 
when  ratified  by  the  president,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate, 
they  became  obligatory.  In  this  construction  of  the  constitution,  every 
house  of  representatives  has  heretofore  acquiesced  ;  and  until  the  present 
time,  not  a  doubt  or  suspicion  has  appeared  to  my  knowledge,  that  this 
construction  was  not  the  true  one.  Nay,  they  have  more  than  acquiesced ; 
for  until  now,  without  controverting  the  obligation  of  such  treaties,  they 
have  made  all  the  requisite  provisions  for  carrying  them  into  effect." 

In  confirmation  of  this  construction,  the  president  refers  to  the  deli- 


144  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

berations  of  the  state  conventions  on  the  constitution,  in  whicli  it  was 
objected  to  that  instrument,  that  in  certain  treaties  the  concurrence  of 
both  houses  was  not  required.  Proof  was  also  found  in  the  concession 
by  the  general  convention,  to  the  small  states  of  an  equal  representation 
in  the  senate,  and  investing  this  body  at  the  same  time  with  the  treaty- 
making  power.  And  he  refers  also  to  the  journals  of  the  convention, 
from  which  it  appears  that  a  proposition,  "  that  no  treaty  should  be 
binding  on  the  United  States  which  was  not  ratified  by  a  law,"  was 
rejected. 

"  As,  therefore,"  said  the  president  in  conclusion,  "  it  is  perfectly  clear 
to  my  understanding,  that  the  assent  of  the  house  of  representatives  is 
not  necessary  to  the  validity  of  a  treaty  ;  as  the  treaty  with  Grreat  Bri- 
tain exhibits  within  itself  all  the  objects  requiring  legislative  provision ; 
and  on  these  the  papers  can  throw  no  light ;  and  as  it  is  essential  to  the 
due  administration  of  the  government,  that  the  boundaries  fixed  by  the 
constitution  between  the  difi'erent  departments  should  be  preserved ;  a 
just  regard  to  the  constitution,  and  to  the  duty  of  my  office,  under  all 
the  circumstances  of  this  case,  forbid  a  compliance  with  your  request." 

On  the  6th  of  April,  this  message  was  referred  to  a  committee  of  the 
whole,  and  two  resolutions  were  moved  by  Mr.  Blount,  of  North  Caro- 
lina, the  first  of  which  disclaimed  the  right  of  the  house  to  interfere  in 
making  treaties,  but  asserted  the  right  to  carry  into  effect,  or  not,  any 
treaty  stipulations  on  subjects  committed  by  the  constitution  to  congress; 
the  second  affirmed  that  the  house  was  not  bound  to  give  any  reasons  for 
a  call  upon  the  executive  for  information.  These  resolutions  were  car- 
ried, 57  to  35. 

Oii  the  13th  of  April,  copies  of  the  treaties  with  Spain,  Algiers,  and 
the  north-western  Indians,  having  been  previously  communicated  to  the 
house,  Mr.  Sedgwick  moved,  "  that  provision  ought  to  be  made  by  law 
for  carrying  into  effect,  with  good  faith,  "  the  treaties  concluded  with 
the  dey  and  regency  of  Algiers,  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  the  king  of 
Spain,  and  certain  Indian  tribes  north-west  of  the  Ohio."  The  object 
of  the  mover  in  joining  all  these  treaties  in  one  motion,  was  not  attained. 
The  motion  was  divided,  and  the  question  taken  upon  th6  treaties  separ- 
ately. Resolutions  declaring  it  expedient  to  carry  into  effect  the  other 
three  treaties  having  been  adopted,  that  relating  to  the  British  treaty 
was  taken  up. 

The  debate  in  committee  of  the  whole  commenced  on  the  15th  of 
April,  and  continued  until  the  29th.  Speeches  were  made  by  more  than 
thirty  members.  Among  the  opponents  of  the  treaty  whose  names  are 
most  conspicuous,  were  Mr.  Madison,  by  whom  the  debate  was  opened, 
and  Mr.  G-allatin,  who  had  just  commenced  his  public  career,  as  a  repre- 


DISCUSSION    ON    THE    JAY    TREATY.  145 

sentative  from  the  insurrection  district  in  western  Pennsylvania.  He 
had  been  previously  chosen  a  senator  in  congress  ;  but  on  its  being  ascer- 
tained that  he  had  not  been  nine  years  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  he 
was  excluded  from  his  seat  in  that  body.  He  had  taken  the  lead  in  the 
debate  on  the  call  for  the  instructions,  and  was  the  most  prominent  and 
effective  speaker  against  the  treaty. 

To  do  justice  to  the  principal  participators  in  this  celebrated  debate, 
would  require  the  transfer,  to  our  pages,  of  more  copious  extracts  from 
their  speeches,  than  our  prescribed  limits  will  permit.  The  grounds  on 
which  the  treaty  was  opposed  and  supported,  are  thus  summarily  stated 
by  Pitkin : 

"  The  objections  of  those  opposed  to  carrying  the  treaty  into  effect, 
were  generally,  that  it  wanted  reciprocity ;  that  it  gave  up  all  claim  of 
compensation  for  negroes  carried  away  contrary  to  the  treaty  of  peace, 
and  for  the  detention  of  the  western  posts;  that  it  contravened  the 
French  treaty,  and  sacrificed  the  interest  of  an  ally  to  that  of  Great 
Britain ;  that  it  gave  up,  in  several  important  instances,  the  law  of 
nations,  particularly  in  relation  to  free  ships  making  free  goods,  cases  of 
blockade,  and  contraband  of  war ;  that  it  improperly  interfered  with  the 
legislative  powers  of  congress,  especially  by  prohibiting  the  sequestration 
of  debts ;  and  that  the  commercial  part  gave  few  if  any  advantages  to 
the  United  States. 

"  On  the  other  hand  it  was  urged,  the  treaty  had  been  constitutionally 
made  and  promulgated ;  that  a  regard  to  public  faith  and  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  country,  under  all  the  circumstances,  required  that  it  should 
be  carried  into  effect,  although  not  in  all  respects  perfectly  satisfactory ; 
that  it  settled  disputes  between  the  two  governments  of  a  very  long 
standing,  of  a  very  interesting  nature,  and  which  it  was  particularly  im- 
portant for  the  United  States  to  bring  to  a  close ;  that  provision  was 
also  made  for  a  settlement  of  those  of  a  more  recent  date,  not  less  affect- 
ing the  sensibility  as  well  as  honor  of  the  country,  and  in  which  the 
commercial  community  had  a  deep  interest ;  that  in  no  case  had  the  law 
of  nations  been  given  up ;  that  the  question  as  to  provisions  being  con- 
traband, although  not  settled,  was  left  as  before  the  treaty ;  that  the 
conventional  rights  of  France  were  saved  by  an  express  clause.  And  as 
to  the  sequestration  of  private  debts,  it  was  said  to  be  contrary  to  every 
principle  of  morality  and  good  faith,  and  ought  never  to  take  place ;  that 
the  commercial  part  would  probably  be  mutually  beneficial,  was  a  matter 
of  experiment,  and  was  to  continue  only  two  years  after  the  close  of  the 
war  in  Europe ;  that,  in  fine,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  the  only 
choice  left  was  treaty  or  war." 

The  ability  and  eloquence  displayed  on  this  question^  have  seldom  been 

10 


146  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN, 

surpassed  in  that  body.  It  was  near  the  close  of  the  debate,  that  the 
celebrated  speech  of  Fisher  Ames  in  favor  of  the  treaty  was  delivered. 
As  a  specimen  of  eloquence,  this  speech  has  been  considered  by  many  as 
almost  unrivaled.  Immediately  after  it  was  concluded,  numerous  calls 
were  made  for  the  question ;  but  the  opposition  members,  unwilling  to 
have  the  vote  taken  under  the  immediate  influence  of  the  speech,  post- 
poned the  question  until  the  next  day,  (April  29,)  when  it  was  carried, 
in  committee  of  the  whole,  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  chairman,  (Muhlen- 
burg,)  who,  though  belonging  to  the  opposition,  did  not  wish  to  take  the 
responsibility  of  deciding  the  question,  as  the  resolution  would  still  bo 
subject  to  amendment  in  the  house.  In  the  house,  after  an  ineffectual 
attempt  so  to  amend  the  resolution,  as  to  declare  the  treaty  "  highly 
objectionable,"  it  was  carried,  51  to  48.     [Appendix,  Note  B.] 

Never,  perhaps,  have  greater  efforts  been  made  to  sustain  or  defeat  a 
measure  than  in  the  present  instance.  Public  meetings  were  held  in  all 
quarters  of  the  union  ;  and  petitions  from  all  classes  of  the  people  were 
poured  in  upon  the  house  to  back  up  the  speeches  of  their  representatives. 
The  prospect  of  a  defeat  of  the  treaty  had  alarmed  the  merchants. 
Indeed  its  effects  upon  commerce  were  already  felt.  And  the  petitions 
from  this  influential  class  of  men,  in  all  the  great  commercial  cities,  had 
no  slight  share  in  producing  the  final  result. 

This  was  the  last  measure  of  much  importance  that  engaged  the  atten- 
tion of  congress  at  the  present  session,  which  was  terminated  on  the  first 
of  June, 

Thomas  Pinckney,  minister  at  London,  having  previously  requested 
a  recall,  was  succeeded  by  Rufus  King,  who  was  appointed  the  20th  of 
May,  1796. 

The  French  government  having  been  officially  informed  that  the  pre- 
sident had  ratified  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  the  minister  of  foreign 
affairs,  in  February,  1796,  informed  Mr.  Monroe  that  the  directory,  (the 
executive  power  under  the  new  constitution,  consisting  of  five  persons,) 
considered  the  alliance  between  the  United  States  and  France  terminated 
by  Jay's  treaty ;  that  Adet  was  to  be  recalled,  and  a  special  envoy  was 
to  be  sent  to  make  the  announcement  to  the  American  government.  A 
few  days  afterward,  Mr.  Monroe  was  presented  with  a  list  of  the  com- 
plaints preferred  by  the  French  government  against  the  United  States. 

The  most  prominent  subject  of  complaint  against  the  United  States 
was,  that  in  their  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  they  had  abandoned  the 
principle,  that  free  ships  should  make  free  goods,  and  that  naval  stores 
and  provisions  were  made  contraband.  By  the  treaties  of  the  United 
States  with  France  and  Great  Britain,  French  property  in  American 
vessels  was  liable  to  seizure  by  British  cruisers,  while  British  goods  were 


MONROE    RECALLED.  147 

secure  in  American  vessels.  This,  however,  was  no  just  ground  of  com- 
plaint. Great  Britain  had  only  reserved  a  right  to  which  she  was  en- 
titled by  the  law  of  nations ;  whereas,  France,  supposing  it  to  be  more 
for  her  interest,  had  preferred  a  different  principle,  which  unforeseen 
t^vents  had  rendered  disadvantageous. 

The  French  government  was  reminded  of  the  decree  of  the  convention 
issued  in  May,  1793,  in  direct  violation  of  this  very  stipulation  of  the 
treaty.  Under  this  decree,  about  fifty  American  vessels  had  been  cap- 
tured and  deprived  of  their  cargoes,  which  were  yet  unpaid  for.  Nearly 
twice  that  number  had  been  detained  at  Bourdeux. 

De  la  Croix  had  intimated  to  Mr.  Monroe,  in  February,  that  the 
directory  had  determined  on  some  retaliatory  measures.  Encouraged  to 
believe  that  the  house  of  representatives  would  defeat  the  treaty  by 
withholding  the  means  of  carrying  it  into  effect,  the  contemplated 
measures  were  for  the  time  delayed.  News  of  the  decision  of  the  house 
of  representatives  reached  Paris  in  June ;  and  on  the  2d  of  July,  the 
directory  issued  a  decree,  that  "  all  neutral  or  allied  powers  shall,  with- 
out delay,  be  notified,  that  the  flag  of  the  French  republic  will  treat 
neutral  vessels,  either  as  to  confiscation,  as  to  searches,  or  capture,  in  the 
same  manner  as  they  shall  suffer  the  English  to  treat  them." 

It  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  purpose  of  France,  with  the  aid  of 
Spain  and  Holland,  to  defeat  the  operation  of  the  treaty.  In  August, 
1796,  France  and  Spain  entered  into  a  treaty  of  alliance,  offensive  and 
defensive,  by  which  they  guarantied  to  each  other  all  their  possessions, 
and  agreed  to  make  common  cause  to  ensure  "  safety  to  the  neutral 
flag;"  in  other  words,  to  compel  the  United  States  to  protect  French 
and  Spanish  property  in  American  vessels,  in  contravention  of  the  treaty 
stipulation  with  Great  Britain.  Accordingly,  Spain  also,  instigated 
probably  by  France,  complained  to  the  American  government  of  the  un- 
equal footing  upon  which  she  had  been  placed  by  the  British  treaty,  and 
made  this  a  pretext  for  not  delivering  up  the  posts  on  the  Mississippi 
and  running  the  southern  boundary  line. 

Holland  also,  then  dependent  on  France,  remonstrated  against  the 
United  States  permitting  the  property  of  her  citizens  to  be  taken  from 
American  vessels.  Said  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  to  John  Quincy 
Adams,  then  minister  in  that  country  :  "  When  circumstances  oblige  our 
commerce  to  confide  its  interests  to  the  neutral  flag  of  American  vessels, 
it  has  a  right  to  insist  that  that  flag  be  protected  with  energy,  and  that 
it  be  not  insulted  at  the  expense  of  a  friendly  and  allied  nation."  And 
he  intimated  that  the  United  States  ought  to  make  common  cause  with 
the  French  republic.  Mr.  Adams,  writing  to  the  American  government, 
said  he  had  received   intimations  of  a  secret  purpose  of  the  French 


148  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

government  to  defeat,  if  possible,  the  treaty  lately  concluded  between  tbe 
United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

With  the  view  to  this  object,  probably,  was  the  attempt  afterward 
made  to  separate  the  people  of  the  west  from  the  union,  and  to  induce 
them  to  join  with  Spain  in  forming  a  new  empire.  The  western  people 
having,  since  the  first  attempt  at  separation,  obtained  the  free  navigation 
of  the  Mississippi,  this  new  project  met  with  little  favor. 

The  president  was  not  fully  satisfied  with  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Monroe 
at  the  French  court.  The  principal  ground  of  dissatisfaction  was  the 
want  of  promptitude  in  making  to  that  government  the  explanations 
furnished  him  by  the  president  in  justification  of  the  treaty  with  Great 
Britain.  It  was  suspected  that  the  delay  had  been  occasioned  by  his 
reluctance  to  justify  a  measure  which  he  disapproved.  The  president  at 
first  determined  to  associate  with  Mr.  Monroe  a  minister  extraordinary, 
in  order  to  insure  a  more  efficient  representation  of  the  views  of  the  ad- 
ministration. But  perceiving,  upon  reflection,  that  the  constitution 
authorized  him  only  to  fill  vacancies  d-uring  the  recess  of  the  senate,  and 
not  to  appoint  additional  officers,  he  concluded  to  recall  Mr.  Monroe ; 
and  on  the  9th  of  September,  1796,  appointed  in  his  place  Charles 
Cotesworth  Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina,  brother  of  Thomas  Pinckney, 
late  minister  to  Great  Britain. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

WASHINGTON   DECLINES     ANOTHER    REELECTION. HIS    LAST   ANNUAL    MES 

SAGE. MR.    PINCKNEY   EXPELLED    FROM   FRANCE. ELECTION  OF   ADAMS 

AND   JEFFERSON. 

As  a  few  months  only  were  to  intervene  before  a  new  election  of  chief 
magistrate  was  to  be  made,  the  public  attention  had  already  begun  to  be 
directed  to  the  selection  of  candidates  for  that  office.  It  was  generally 
supposed  to  be  the  determination  of  the  president  to  decline  being  again 
a  candidate.  Notwithstanding  the  unscrupulous  efforts,  not  only  to 
render  his  administration  odious,  but  to  shake  the  public  confidence  in 
"Washington  himself,  he  still  retained  the  affections  of  the  great  mass  of 
the  people.  His  retirement  at  the  present  juncture  would,  it  was 
feared,  expose  the  national  policy  just  established  to  great  hazard.  Of 
his  reelection,  should  he  be  a  candidate,  there  was  no  reasonable  doubt. 


Washington's  opinion  of  jefferson.  149 

The  success  of  any  other  person  of  the  same  political  party,  \^as  doubt- 
ful ;  and  even  if  elected,  it  was  by  no  means  certain  that  his  personal 
popularity  could  impart  to  his  administration  sufficient  strength  to  with- 
stand the  powerful  and  determined  opposition  which  it  was  destined  to 
encounter. 

Hence  "Washington  was  strongly  urged  by  many  of  his  friends  to 
change  his  purpose,  and  once  more  to  consent  to  sacrifice  his  individual 
ease  and  happiness  for  the  public  welfare,  Ardently  as  he  desired  a  re- 
lease from  the  cares  and  responsibilities  of  public  life,  induced,  probably, 
by  the  pressing  solicitations  of  his  friends,  he  delayed,  for  the  present, 
the  announcement  of  his  intention  to  decline.  In  the  mean  time,  un- 
scrupulous efforts  were  kept  up,  not  only  to  turn  the  popular  sentiment 
against  his  policy,  but  to  weaken  his  hold  on  the  affections  of  the  people. 
No  artifice  was  supposed  to  be  more  likely  to  effect  this  object,  than  to 
represent  him  as  friendly  to  England  and  inimical  to  France. 

It  will  be  recollected  that  the  president  addressed  to  the  members  of 
his  cabinet  a  series  of  questions  for  their  consideration,  prior  to  the 
meeting  at  which  it  was  decided  to  issue  the  proclamation  of  neutrality. 
A  number  of  essays  appeared  in  the  Aurora,  in  one  of  which  these 
queries  were  inserted,  and  made  the  subject  of  bitter  denunciation. 
"  Perfidy  and  ingratitude,"  it  was  said,  "  were  stamped  on  their  front." 
They  were  ^'  a  stupendous  monument  of  degeneracy.  It  would  almost 
require  the  authenticity  of  holy  writ  to  persuade  posterity  that  they 
were  not  a  libel  ingeniously  contrived  to  injure  the  reputation  of  the 
savior  of  his  country." 

This  document  being  strictly  confidential,  it  could  have  become  public 
only  by  a  betrayal  of  confidence.  Mr.  Jefferson,  to  free  himself  from 
suspicion,  immediately  wrote  a  letter  to  the  president,  assuring  him  of 
his  own  innocence.  The  president,  in  answer,  said  he  did  not  suspect 
him  of  having  given  the  queries  publicity.  He  was,  however,  "  at  no 
loss  to  conjecture  from  what  source  they  flowed,  through  what  channel 
they  were  conveyed,  nor  for  what  purpose  they  and  similar  publications 
appeared."  [The  "  source"  here  alluded  to,  was  probably  Mr.  Randolph.] 
The  letter  proceeds  to  say : 

"  As  you  have  mentioned  the  subject  yourself,  it  would  not  be  frank, 
candid,  or  friendly,  to  conceal,  that  your  conduct  has  been  represented 
as  derogating  from  that  opinion  I  conceived  you  entertained  of  me ; 
that  to  your  particular  friends  and  connections  you  have  described,  and 
they  have  denounced  me,  as  a  person  under  a  dangerous  influence ;  and 
that  if  I  would  listen  more  to  some  other  opinions,  all  would  be  well. 
My  answer  invariably  has  been,  that  I  had  never  discovered  any  thing 
in  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Jefferson  to  raise  suspicions  in  my  mind  of  his 


150  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

sincerity ;  that  if  he  would  retrace  my  public  conduct  while  he  was  in 
the  administration,  abundant  proof  would  occur  to  him,  that  truth  and 
right  decisions  were  the  sole  objects  of  my  pursuit ;  that  there  were  aa 
many  instances  within  his  own  knowledge  of  my  having  decided  against 
as  in  favor  of  the  person  evidently  alluded  to,  (Hamilton ;)  and  more- 
over, that  I  was  no  believer  in  the  infallibility  of  the  politics  or  measures 
of  any  man  living.  In  short,  that  I  was  no  party  man  myself;  and  that 
the  first  wish  of  my  heart  was,  if  parties  did  exist,  to  reconcile  them. 

"  To  this  I  may  add,  that  until  the  last  year  or  two,  I  had  no  concep- 
tion that  parties  would,  or  even  could,  go  the  lengths  I  have  been  witness 
to ;  nor  did  I  believe,  until  lately,  that  it  was  within  the  bounds  of 
probability — hardly  within  those  of  possibility — that  while  I  was  using 
my  utmost  exertions  to  establish  a  national  character  of  our  own,  inde- 
pendent as  far  as  our  obligations  and  justice  would  permit,  of  every 
nation  of  the  earth ;  and  wished,  by  steering  a  steady  course,  to  preserve 
this  country  from  the  horrors  of  a  desolating  war ;  I  should  be  accused  of 
being  the  enemy  of  one  nation,  and  subject  to  the  influence  of  another ; 
and  to  prove  it,  that  every  act  of  my  administration  would  be  tortured, 
and  the  grossest  and  most  insidious  misrepresentations  of  them  be  made, 
by  giving  one  side  only  of  a  subject,  and  that,  too,  in  such  exaggerated 
and  indecent  terms  as  could  scarcely  be  applied  to  a  Nero — to  a  no- 
torious defaulter,  or  even  to  a  common  pick-pocket. 

"  But  enough  of  this ;  I  have  already  gone  further  in  the  expression 
of  my  feelings  than  I  intended." 

This  letter  would  seem  to  indicate  a  suspicion,  on  the  part  of  Wash- 
ington, that  Jefferson  was  secretly  endeavoring  to  impair  the  public  con- 
fidence in  him.  This  suspicion  subsequent  events  tended  to  strengthen 
and  confirm.  Among  these  was  the  appearance  the  next  year,  of  a  letter 
written  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  April,  1796,  to  P.  Mazzei,  a  foreigner,  and 
which  had  found  its  way  back  to  this  country.  The  letter  as  it  first  ap- 
peared in  the  papers,  being,  as  Mr.  Jefferson  alleged,  an  imperfect 
translation,  we  give  it  as  corrected  by  himself. 

"  My  dear  friend  :  The  aspect  of  our  politics  has  wonderfully 
changed  since  you  left  us.  In  place  of  that  noble  love  of  liberty  and 
republican  government  which  carried  us  triumphantly  through  the  war, 
an  Anglican  monarchical  and  aristocratic  party  has  sprung  up,  whose 
avowed  object  is  to  draw  over  us  the  substance,  as  they  have  already 
done  the  forms,  of  the  British  government.  The  main  body  of  our 
citizens,  however,  remain  true  to  their  republican  principles  :  the  whole 
landed  interest  is  republican,  and  so  is  a  great  mass  of  talents.  Against 
us  are  the  executive,  the  judiciary,  two  out  of  three  branches  of  the 
legislature,  all  the  officers  of  the  government,  all  who  want  to  be  officers, 


WASHINGTON    DECLINES    ANOTHER    REELECTION.  151 

all  timid  men  who  prefer  tlie  calm  of  despotism  to  the  boisterous  sea  of 
liberty,  British  merchants,  and  Americans  trading  on  British  capitals, 
speculators  and  holders  in  the  banks  and  public  funds,  a  contrivance  in- 
vented for  the  purposes  of  corruption,  and  for  assimilating  us  in  all 
things  to  the  rotten  as  well  as  the  sound  parts  of  the  British  model.  It 
would  give  you  a  fever  were  I  to  name  to  you  the  apostates  who  have 
gone  over  to  these  heresies,  men  who  were  Samsons  in  the  field  and 
Solomons  in  the  council,  but  who  have  had  their  heads  shorn  by  the 
harlot  England.  In  short,  we  are  likely  to  preserve  the  liberty  we  have 
obtained  only  by  unremitting  labors  and  perils.  But  we  shall  preserve 
it;  and  our  mass  of  weight  and  wealth  on  the  good  side  is  so  great,  as  to 
leave  no  danger  that  force  will  ever  be  attempted  against  us.  We  have 
only  to  awake,  and  snap  the  Lilliputian  cords  with  which  they  have  been 
entangling  us  during  the  first  sleep  which  succeeded  our  labors.  It 
sufiices  that  we  arrest  the  progress  of  that  system  of  ingratitude  and  in- 
justice toward  France,  from  which  they  would  alienate  us,  to  bring  ua 
under  British  influence." 

Such  a  letter  from  one  with  whom  he  had  long  sustained  the  most 
intimate  and  friendly  relations,  private  and  official — accusing  him  of 
antagonism  to  republican  principles,  and  of  cooperating  with  a  monarchical 
party  to  change  the  government — characterizing  his  administration  as 
"  the  calm  of  despotism,"  and  representing  its  measures  as  "  contrivances 
invented  for  the  purposes  of  corruption" — gave  Washington  great  pain, 
and  greatly  marred,  if  it  did  not  terminate,  the  friendship  which  had  so 
long  subsisted  between  these  two  eminent  and  esteemed  individuals. 

A  principal  object  of  Washington's  opponents  was  to  induce  the  belief 
that  he  was  inimical  to  France,  and  friendly  to  Great  Britain.  In  1777, 
a  number  of  forged  letters  were  published,  purporting  to  have  been  writ- 
ten by  him  in  1776,  to  certain  friends,  and  containing  expressions  in 
opposition  to  the  cause  of  independence,  and  favorable  to  Great  Britain. 
The  calumny  was  revived  by  the  republication  of  these  letters ;  and  as 
he  treated  it  with  silence,  the  genuineness  of  the  letters  was,  to  some 
extent,  and  for  a  time,  believed.  To  prevent  future  injury  to  his  politi- 
cal character,  on  the  day  of  his  retirement  from  office,  (March  3,  1797,) 
he  addressed  to  the  secretary  of  state,  a  letter,  solemnly  declaring  the 
letters  "  a  base  forgery,"  and  detailing  circumstances  proving  them  to  be 
such ;  and  concluding  with  a  request,  that  the  present  letter  might  be 
deposited  in  the  office  of  tho  state  department  "  as  a  testimony  of  the 
truth  to  the  present  generation,  and  to  posterity." 

Having  fully  determined  to  decline  another  election,  the  president 
announced  his  determination  in  a  valedictory  address  to  the  people  of 
the   United   States,  which   boars   date   September    16th,    1796.     This 


152  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

address  contains  a  summary  of  tlie  political  maxims  by  whicli  he  had 
been-  governed  in  the  conduct  of  his  administration,  and  the  observance 
of  which  he  deemed  indispensable  to  the  future  safety  and  welfare  of  the 
nation.  [Note,  page  995.] 

Washington  having  explicitly  declined  a  reelection,  the  federalists 
united  upon  John  Adams  and  Thomas  Pinckney  as  their  candidates  for 
president  and  vice-president ;  and  the  republicans  supported  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son and  Aaron  Burr.  The  struggle  was  a  very  ardent  and  a  bitter  one. 
The  feelings,  not  only  of  the  American  people,  but  of  foreigners,  espe- 
cially the  French,  were  deeply  enlisted  in  it.  The  French  minister  was 
more  than  a  concerned  spectator  to  the  contest.  Just  before  the  election 
he  sent  a  communication  to  the  secretary  of  state,  containing  a  repetition 
of  the  various  accusations  against  our  government,  of  bad  faith,  of  in- 
justice, and  of  ingratitude  towards  France.  The  object  of  this  letter  at 
this  particular  time,  was  sufficiently  disclosed  by  its  being  sent,  at  the 
same  time,  to  the  Aurora  newspaper  for  publication.  This  extraordinary 
diplomatic  letter  concludes  thus  : 

"  Alas  !  time  has  not  yet  demolished  the  fortifications  with  which  the 
English  roughened  this  country,  nor  those  the  Americans  raised  for  their 
defense  :  their  half  rounded  summits  still  appear  in  every  quarter, 
amidst  plains,  on  the  tops  of  mountains.  The  traveler  need  not  search 
for  the  ditch  which  served  to  encompass  them ;  it  is  still  open  under  his 
feet.  Scattered  ruins  of  houses  laid  waste,  which  the  fire  had  partly 
respected,  in  order  to  leave  monuments  of  British  fury,  are  still  to  be 
found.  Men  still  exist,  who  can  say,  here  a  ferocious  Englishman  slaugh- 
tered my  father  ;  there  my  wife  tore  her  daughter  from  the  hands  of  an 
unbridled  Englishman.  Alas  !  the  soldiers  who  fell  under  the  sword  of 
the  Britons  are  not  yet  reduced  to  dust :  the  laborer,  in  turning  up  his 
field,  still  draws  from  the  bosom  of  the  earth  their  whitened  bones  ;  while 
the  ploughman,  with  tears  of  tenderness  and  gratitude,  still  recollects 
that  his  fields,  now  covered  with  rich  harvests,  have  been  moistened  with 
French  blood.  While  every  thing  around  the  inhabitants  of  this  country 
animates  them  to  speak  of  the  tyranny  of  Great  Britain,  and  of  the  gen- 
erosity of  Frenchmen ;  when  England  has  declared  a  war  of  death  to 
that  nation,  to  avenge  herself  for  its  having  cemented  with  its  blood  the 
independence  of  the  United  States  ; — it  was  at  this  moment  their  govern- 
ment made  a  treaty  of  amity  with  their  ancient  tyrant,  the  implacable 
enemy  of  their  ancient  ally.  Oh,  Americans,  covered  with  noble  scars  ! 
Oh,  you  who  have  so  often  flown  to  death  and  to  victory  with  'French 
soldiers  !  you  who  know  those  generous  sentiments  which  distinguish  the 
true  warrior  !  whose  hearts  have  always  vibrated  with  those  of  your  com- 
panions in  arms  1  consult  them  to-day  to  know  what  they  cxperienca 


WASHINGTON'S    LAST   ANNUAL    MESSAGE.  153 

Recollect,  at  the  same  time,  that  if  magnanimous  souls  with  liveliness 
resent  an  affront,  they  also  know  how  to  forget  one.  Let  your  govern- 
ment return  to  itself,  and  you  will  still  find  in  Frenchmen  faithful  friends 
and  generous  allies." 

Adet  also  announced  in  this  letter  the  orders  of  the  French  directory 
to  suspend  his  ministerial  functions  with  the  federal  government.  This 
act,  however,  was  not  intended  "  as  a  rupture  between  France  and  the 
United  States,  but  as  a  mark  of  just  discontent  which  was  to  last  until 
the  government  of  the  United  States  returned  to  sentiments  and  to 
measures  more  conformable  to  the  interests  of  the  alliance,  and  the  sworn 
friendship  between  the  two  nations."  After  the  manner  of  Genet,  he 
denounces  the  government,  but  flatters  the  people.  "  Notwithstanding 
the  wrongs  of  the  gover7iment^^  he  says,  "  the  directory  do  not  wish  to 
break  with  a  people  whom  they  love  to  salute  with  the  appellation  of  a 
friend." 

It  is  but  justice  to  the  discreet  and  reflecting  men  of  the  opposition 
party,  to  say,  that  they  disapproved  this  interference,  on  the  part  of  a 
foreign  minister,  in  the  election  of  a  chief  magistrate ;  and  we  are  in- 
formed that  it  appeared  to  have  had  no  sensible  effect  upon  the  election. 

About  the  same  time,  there  appeared  in  the  same  newspaper,  an  order 
from  Adet,  in  the  name  of  the  French  directory,  to  Frenchmen  in  the 
United  States,  to  wear  the  tri-colored  cockade ;  which  was  accordingly 
done,  not  by  Frenchmen  only,  bui  by  many  of  our  own  citizens.    ' 

Congress  met  on  the  5th  of  December,  1796  ;  and  on  the  7th,  Wash- 
ington addressed  the  legislature  for  the  last  time.  The  adjustment  of 
difficulties  with  the  Indians,  with  Great  Britain,  Spain  and  Algiers,  and 
the  pending  negotiations  with  Tunis  and  Tripoli,  were  made  subjects  of 
communication.  To  secure  respect  to  our  neutral  flag,  and  to  protect 
our  trade  to  the  Mediterranean,  he  recommended  the  gradual  creation 
of  a  navy.  The  encouragement  of  manufactures,  agriculture,  the  arts 
and  sciences,  was  also  commended  to  the  attention  of  congress.  In 
adverting  to  our  relations  with  France,  the  president  said :  "  Our  trade 
has  suffered,  and  is  suffering,  extensive  injuries  in  the  West  Indies  from 
the  cruisers  and  agents  of  the  French  republic ;  and  communications 
have  been  received  from  its  minister  here,  which  indicate  the  danger  of 
a  farther  disturbance  of  our  commerce,  by  its  authority,  and  which  are, 
in  other  respects,  far  from  agreeable."  He  expressed  the  wish  to  con- 
tinue to  maintain  cordial  harmony  and  a  friendly  understanding  with 
that  nation,  and  cherished  the  "  expectation  that  a  spirit  of  justice,  can- 
dor, and  friendship,  on  the  part  of  the  republic,  would  eventually  insure 
success." 

The  following  is  the  concluding  paragraph  of  his  speech  :    "  The  situ- 


154  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN". 

ation  in  wlilcli  I  now  stand,  for  the  last  time,  in  the  midst  -of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  naturally  recalls  the  period 
when  the  administration  of  the  present  form  of  government  commenced ; 
and  I  can  not  omit  the  occasion  to  congratulate  you  and  my  country  on 
the  success  of  the  experiment,  nor  to  repeat  my  fervent  supplications  to 
the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  universe,  and  the  Sovereign  Arbiter  of  nations, 
that  his  providential  care  may  still  be  extended  to  the  United  States  ; 
that  the  virtue  and  happiness  of  the  people  may  be  preserved ;  and  that 
the  government  which  they  have  instituted  for  the  protection  of  their 
liberties  may  be  perpetuated." 

The  answers  of  both  houses  were  such  as  could  not  fail  to  be  gratify- 
ing to  the  president.  That  of  the  house,  however,  was  not  adopted  with- 
out considerable  opposition.  From  the  draft,  as  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee, Mr.  Giles  moved  to  strike  out  several  whole  paragraphs,  one  of 
which  was  the  following :  "  And  while  we  entertain  a  grateful  conviction 
that  your  wise,  firm,  and  patriotic  administration  has  been  signally  con- 
ducive to  the  success  of  the  present  form  of  government,  we  can  not 
forbear  to  express  the  deep  sensations  of  regret  with  which  we  contem- 
plate your  intended  retirement  from  office." 

Mr.  Griles  would  not  admit  that  the  administration  had  been  wise  and 
firm.  It  was  from  a  want  of  wisdom  and  firmness  that  we  were  brought 
into  our  present  critical  situation.  He  did  not  regret  his  retirement 
from  office.  He  hoped  he  would  retire  to  his  country-seat  and  enjoy  all 
the  happiness  he  could  wish  ;  and  he  believed  he  would  enjoy  more  there 
than  in  his  present  situation.  He  believed  there  were  a  thousand  men  in 
the  United  States,  who  were  capable  of  filling  the  presidential  chair  as 
well  as  it  had  been  filled  heretofore.  The  motion  of  Mr.  Giles  to  strike 
out  was  lost. 

Objection  was  also  made  to  the  words,  "  the  spectacle  of  a  whole 
nation,  the  freest  and  most  enlightened  in  the  world."  The  excep- 
tion taken  to  this  expression  is  presumed  to  have  been  on  the  ground  of 
its  giving  to  this  country,  in  respect  to  freedom  and  intelligence,  the  pre- 
cedence of  France.  It  was  amended  so  as  to  read,  "  the  spectacle  of  a 
free  and  enlightened  nation." 

A  motion  was  also  made  to  strike  out  the  concluding  sentence :  "  For 
our  country's  sake ;  for  the  sake  of  republicanism,  it  is  our  earnest  wish 
that  your  example  may  be  the  guide  of  your  successors,  and  thus,  after 
being  the  ornament  and  safeguard  of  the  present  age,  become  the  patri- 
mony of  our  descendants."  The  motion  failed.  Of  the  twenty-four  who 
voted  for  it,  were  Gallatin,  Giles,  Andrew  Jackson,  Edward  Livingston, 
and  Macon.  On  the  question  of  adopting  the  address,  the  yeas  and  nays 
were  called  for  by  a  member  of  the  opposition.  Among  the  twelve  who 
voted  in  the  negative,  were  Giles,  Jackson,  Livingston,  and  Macon. 


MR.    PINCKNEY    EXPELLED   PROM    FRANCE.  155 

In  contrast  with  the  answer  of  the  two  houses  of  congress  to  the  speech 
of  the  president,  and  with  the  popular  sentiment  of  the  nation,  we  pre- 
sent an  extract  from  an  article  which  appeared  a  few  days  after  in  the 
Philadelphia  Aurora,  a  violent  opposition  paper.  "  If  ever  a  nation  was 
debauched  by  a  man,  the  American  nation  has  been  debauched  by  Wash- 
ington. If  ever  a  nation  has  been  deceived  by  a  man,  the  American 
nation  has  been  deceived  by  Washington.  Let  his  conduct,  then,  be  an 
example  to  future  ages.  Let  it  serve  to  be  a  warning  that  no  man  may 
be  an  idol.  Let  the  history  of  the  federal  government  instruct  mankind 
that  the  mask  of  patriotism  may  be  worn  to  conceal  the  foulest  designs 
against  the  liberties  of  the  people." 

As  has  been  stated,  the  object  of  Mr.  Pinckney's  mission  was  to  make 
full  explanations  to  the  French  government  of  the  conduct  of  the  admin- 
istration towards  France,  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  harmony  between 
the  two  countries.  On  the  19th  of  January,  1797,  the  president  trans- 
mitted to  congress  a  full  and  minute  statement  of  the  controversy  with 
France ;  in  which  all  her  complaints  were  noticed,  and  her  conduct,  and 
that  of  her  ministers,  as  well  as  that  of  our  own  government,  carefully 
reviewed ;  and  in  which  the  latter  was  successfully  vindicated.  This 
exposition  of  our  affairs  with  France  was  in  the  shape  of  a  letter  to  Mr. 
Pinckney,  designed  to  aid  him  in  making  a  proper  representation  of  the 
subject  to  the  French  government.  And  that  the  American  people 
might  have  a  correct  view  of  this  exciting  controversy,  the  letter  and  the 
accompanying  documents  were  made  public. 

Mr.  Pinckney  arrived  at  Paris  about  the  1st  of  December,  1796.  On 
the  9th,  Mr.  Monroe  presented  his  letter  of  recall,  and  Mr.  Pinckney  his 
letter  of  credence.  Two  days  after,  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  in- 
formed Mr.  Monroe,  that  the  directory  would  "  no  longer  recognize  a 
minister  plenipotentiary  from  the  United  States,  until  after  a  reparation 
of  the  grievances  demanded  of  the  American  government,  and  which 
the  French  government  had  a  right  to  expect."  Mr.  Pinckney  addressed 
a  note  to  the  French  minister,  inquiring  whether  it  was  intended  that  he 
should  quit  the  republic.  The  minister,  (De  la  Croix,)  considering  a 
direct  communication  with  Mr.  Pinckney  an  acknowledgment  of  him  as 
minister,  sent  one  of  his  secretaries  to  inform  him  that  such  was  the 
intention  of  the  directory.  For  his  own  justification,  Mr.  Pinckney 
desired  a  written  answer ;  but  obtained  none  until  the  last  of  January, 
when  he  received  a  written  notice  to  quit  the  territory  of  the  republic. 
He  proceeded  to  Amsterdam  to  wait  for  instructions  from  his  govern- 
ment. While  at  Paris,  he  was  threatened  with"  prosecution  for  a  viola- 
tion of  the  law  which  prohibited  foreigners  from  remaining  there  without 
special  permission.  But  he  insisted  with  firmness  on  the  protection  of 
the  law  of  nations  due  to  him  as  the  known  minister  of  a  foreign  power. 


156  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

On  the  8th  of  February,  the  electoral  votes  were  opened  and  counted 
in  the  presence  of  both  houses.  Mr.  Adams  had  received  7 1  votes,  and 
Mr.  Jeiferson  69.  Thomas  Pinckney  received  59 ;  Aaron  Burr,  30 ; 
Samuel  Adams,  15;  Oliver  Ellsworth,  11;  George  Clinton,  7;  John 
Jay,  5  ;  scattering,  1 0. 

At  the  close  of  this  session,  March  3,  1797,  terminated  the  adminis- 
tration of  Washington  ;  during  which  all  disputes  with  foreign  nations, 
except  those  with  France,  were  adjusted ;  credit  was  restored  ;  the  pay- 
ment of  the  public  debt  was  provided  for ;  commerce  was  prosperous  ; 
agricultural  products  had  a  ready  market ;  exports  and  imports  had  been 
nearly  tripled  ;  and  the  revenues  exceeded  all  calculations. 

After  attending  the  inauguration  of  his  successor,  which  took  place  the 
next  day,  he  departed  for  Mount  Vernon,  receiving  on  his  journey  marks 
of  undiminished  esteem  and  affection  from  his  fellow-citizens. 

But  these  and  numberless  other  unequivocal  expressions  of  respect  and 
veneration  for  the  character  of  Washington  did  not  shield  him  from 
detraction  and  calumny.  His  retirement  furnished  the  occasion  for  at 
least  one  more  assault  of  impotent  malice  through  its  accustomed  chan- 
nel, the  organ  of  the  opposition  at  the  seat  of  government.  Scarcely  had 
he  taken  his  departure  from  Philadelphia,  before  the  following,  ascribed 
to  a  public  functionary  high  in  the  confidence  of  the  leaders  of  the  oppo- 
sition, appeared  in  the  Aurora : 

"  '  Lord,  now  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in  peace,  for  mine  eyes 
have  seen  thy  salvation,'  was  the  pious  ejaculation  of  a  man  who  beheld 
a  flood  of  happiness  rushing  in  upon  mankind.  If  ever  there  was  a  time 
which  would  license  the  reiteration  of  this  exclamation,  that  time  is  now 
arrived ;  for  the  man  who  is  the  source  of  all  the  misfortunes  of  our 
country  is  this  day  reduced  to  a  level  with  his  fellow-citizens,  and  is  no 
longer  possessed  of  power  to  multiply  evils  upon  the  United  States.  If 
ever  there  was  a  period  for  rejoicing,  this  is  the  moment.  Every  heart 
in  unison  with  the  freedom  and  happiness  of  the  people,  ought  to  beat 
hi^h  with  exultation  that  the  name  of  Washington  from  this  day  ceases 
to  give  a  currency  to  political  iniquity  and  to  legalized  corruption.  A 
new  era  is  now  opening  upon  us — an  era  which  promises  much  to  the 
people;  for  public  measures  must  now  stand  upon  their  own  merits,  and 
nefarious  projectscan  no  longer  be  supported  by  a  name.  It  is  a  subject 
of  the  greatest  astonishment,  that  a  single  individual  should  have  carried 
his  designs  against  the  public  liberty  so  far  as  to  have  put  in  jeopardy 
its  very  existence.  Such,  however,  are  the  facts ;  and  with  these  staring 
us  in  the  face,  this  day  ought  to  be  a  jubilee  in  the  United  States !" 


INAUGURATION   OF    MR.    ADAMS.  157 


CHAPTER   XII. 

INAUGURATION  OF    MR.    ADAMS. RELATIONS  WITH   FRANCE. SPECIAL    SES- 
SION.  MEASURES   OF   DEFENSE. ALIEN    AND    SEDITION    LAWS. 

On  the  4tli  of  March,  1797,  John  Adams  was  inaugurated  president 
of  the  United  States,  in  Congress  Hall,  at  Philadelphia.  Among  the 
persons  of  distinction  in  attendance,  were  General  Washington,  the  vice- 
president  elect,  the  government  officers,  foreign  ministers,  members  of 
congress,  and  many  private  citizens.  After  the  address  had  been  deliv- 
ered, the  oath  of  office  was  administered  by  Oliver  Ellsworth,  chief- 
justice  of  the  supreme  court. 

Prominent  members  of  the  administration  had  been  charged  with 
disesteem  for  France,  and  a  controlling  sympathy  for  Great  Britain, 
and  a  predilection  for  her  form  of  government,  especially  for  a  more 
durable  executive  and  senate  than  had  been  provided  by  the  constitution. 
Mr.  Adams  availed  himself  of  this  occasion  to  disclaim  these  sentiments. 
He  had,  he  said,  first  seen  the  constitution  while  in  a  foreign  country, 
and  had  "  read  it  with  great  satisfaction,  as  a  result  of  good  heads, 
promoted  by  good  hearts,  as  an  experiment  better  adapted  to  the  genius, 
character,  situation,  and  relations  of  this  nation  and  country,  than  any 
which  had  ever  been  proposed  or  suggested."  J^e  had  expressed  his 
approbation  of  it  on  all  occasions,  in  public  and  in  private.  It  had  never 
been  any  objection  to  it  in  his  mind,  that  the  executive  and  the  senate 
were  not  more  permanent.  Having  witnessed  its  successful  operation, 
he  had  acquired  an  habitual  attachment  to  it,  and  veneration  for  it. 

Having  expressed  his  admiration  of  some  of  the  leading  features  of 
the  government,  he  proceeds  :  "  The  existence  of  such  a  government  as 
ours  for  any  length  of  time,  is  a  full  proof  of  a  general  dissemination  of 
knowledge  and  virtue  throughout  the  whole  body  of  the  people.  And 
what  object  or  consideration  more  pleasing  than  this  can  be  presented  to 
the  human  mind  ?  If  national  pride  is  ever  justifiable,  or  excusable,  it 
is  when  it  springs,  not  from  power  or  riches,  grandeur  or  glory,  but  from 
conviction  of  national  innocence,  information,  and  benevolence. 

"  In  the  midst  of  these  pleasing  ideas,  we  should  be  unfaithful  to  our- 
selves if  we  should  ever  lose  sight  of  the  danger  to  our  liberties,  if  any 
thing  partial  or  extraneous  should  infect  the  purity  of  our  free,  fair,  vir- 
tuous, and  independent  elections.  If  an  election  is  to  be  determined  by 
a  majority  of  a  single  vote,  and  that  can  be  procured  by  a  party  through 
artifice  or  corruption,  the  government  may  be  the  choice  of  a  party  for 


158  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

its  own  ends,  not  of  the  nation  for  the  national  good.  If  that  solitary 
suffrage  can  be  obtained  by  foreign  nations  by  flattery  or  menaces,  by 
fraud  or  violence,  by  terror,  intrigue,  or  venality,  the  government  may 
not  be  the  choice  of  the  American  people,  but  of  foreign  nations.  It 
may  be  foreign  nations  who  govern  us,  and  not  we,  the  people,  who 
govern  ourselves.  And  candid  men  will  acknowledge,  that  in  such  cases 
choice  would  have  little  advantage  to  boast  of  over  lot  or  chance." 

The  president  then  passed  upon  his  illustrious  predecessor  the  follow- 
ing truthful  and  appropriate  encomium  : 

"  Such  is  the  amiable  and  interesting  system  of  government,  and  such 
are  some  of  the  abuses  to  which  it  may  be  exposed,  which  the  people  of 
America  have  exhibited  to  the  admiration  and  anxiety  of  the  wise  and 
virtuous  of  all  nations  for  eight  years,  under  the  administration  of  a  citi- 
zen, who,  by  a  long  course  of  great  actions,  regulated  by  prudence, 
justice,  temperance,  and  fortitude,  conducting  a  people,  inspired  with 
the  same  virtue,  and  animated  with  the  same  ardent  patriotism  and  love 
of  liberty,  to  independence  and  peace,  to  increasing  wealth  and  unex- 
ampled prosperity,  has  merited  the  gratitude  of  his  fellow-citizens,  com- 
manded the  highest  praises  of  foreign  nations,  and  secured  immortal 
glory  with  posterity. 

"  In  that  retirement  which  is  his  voluntary  choice,  may  he  long  live 
to  enjoy  the  delicious  recollection  of  his  services,  the  gratitude  of  man- 
kind, the  happy  fruits  of  them  to  himself  and  the  world,  which  are  daily 
increasing,  and  that  ||)lendid  prospect  of  the  future  fortunes  of  this 
country  which  is  opening  from  year  to  year.  His  name  may  still  be  a 
rampart,  and  the  knowledge  that  he  lives,  a  bulwark  against  all  open  or 
secret  enemies  of  his  country's  pe^ce.  His  example  has  been  recom- 
mended to  the  imitation  of  his  successors  by  both  houses  of  congress,  and 
by  the  voice  of  the  legislature  and  the  people  throughout  the  nation." 

His  own  principles  and  rule  of  action  are  thus  expressed : 

"  On  this  subject  it  might  become  me  better  to  be  silent,  or  to  speak 
with  diffidence ;  but  as  something  may  be  expected,  the  occasion  I  hope 
will  be  admitted  as  an  apology,  if  I  venture  to  say  that  if  a  preference, 
upon  principle,  of  a  free  republican  government,  formed  upon  long  and 
serious  reflection,  after  a  diligent  and  impartial  inquiry  after  truth ;  if 
an  attachment  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  a  conscien- 
tious determination  to  support  it  until  it  shall  be  altered  by  the  judgment 
and  wishes  of  the  people,  expressed  in  the  mode  prescribed  in  it ;  if  a 
respectful  attention  to  the  constitutions  of  the  individual  states,  and  a 
constant  caution  and  delicacy  toward  the  state  governments  ;  if  an  equal 
and  important  tegard  to  the  rights,  interest,  honor,  and  happiness,  of  all 
the  states  in  the  union,  without  preference  or  regard  to  a  northern  or 


INAUGURATION    OF    MR.    ADAMS.  159 

southern,  an  eastern  or  western  position,  their  various  political  opinions 
on  essential  points,  or  their  personal  attachments ;  if  a  love  of  virtuous 
men  of  all  parties  and  denominations ;  if  a  love  of  science  and  letters, 
and  a  wish  to  patronize  every  rational  effort  to  encourage  schools,  col- 
leges, universities,  academies,  and  every  institution  for  propagating 
knowledge,  virtue,  and  religion,  among  all  classes  of  the  people,  not  only 
for  their  benign  influence  on  the  happiness  of  life  in  all  its  stages  and 
classes,  and  of  society  in  all  its  forms,  but  as  the  only  means  of  preserving 
our  constitution  from  its  natural  enemies,  the  spirit  of  sophistry,  the 
spirit  of  party,  the  spirit  of  intrigue,  the  profligacy  of  corruption,  and 
the  pestilence  of  foreign  influence,  which  is  the  angel  of  destruction  to 
elective  governments  ;  if  a  love  of  equal  laws,  of  justice,  and  humanity, 
in  the  interior  administration ;  if  an  inclination  to  improve  agriculture, 
commerce,  and  manufactures,  for  necessity,  convenience,  and  defense ;  if 
a  spirit  of  equity  and  humanity  toward  the  aboriginal  nations  of  America, 
and  a  disposition  to  ameliorate  their  condition  by  inclining  them  to  be 
more  friendly  to  us,  and  our  citizens  to  be  more  friendly  to  them  ;  if  an 
inflexible  determination  to  maintain  peace  and  inviolable  faith  with  all 
nations,  and  that  system  of  neutrality  and  impartiality  among  the  bel- 
ligerent powers  of  Europe  which  has  been  adopted  by  this  government, 
and  so  solemnly  sanctioned  by  both  houses  of  congress,  and  applauded 
by  the  legislatures  of  the  states  and  the  public  opinion,  until  it  shall  be 
otherwise  ordained  by  congress ;  if  a  personal  esteem  for  the  French 
nation,  formed  in  a  residence  of  seven  years  chiefly  among  them,  and  a 
sincere  desire  to  preserve  the  friendship  which  has  been  so  much  for  the 
honor  and  interest  of  both  nations  ;  if,  while  the  conscious  honor  and 
integrity  of  the  people  of  America,  and  the  internal  sentiment  of  their 
own  power  and  energies  must  be  preserved,  an  earnest  endeavor  to  inves- 
tio-ate  every  just  cause,  and  remove  every  colorable  pretense  of  complaint; 
if  an  intention  to  pursue  by  amicable  negotiation  a  reparation  for  the 
injuries  that  have  been  committed  on  the  commerce  of  our  fellow-citizens, 
by  whatever  nation,  and  if  success  cannot  be  obtained,  to  lay  the  facts 
before  the  legislature  that  they  may  consider  what  further  measures  the 
honor  and  interest  of  the  government  and  its  constituents  demand ;  if 
a  resolution  to  do  justice  as  far  as  may  depend  upon  me,  at  all  times  and 
to  all  nations,  and  maintain  peace,  friendship,  and  benevolence,  with  all 
the  world ;  if  an  unshaken  confidence  in  the  honor,  spirit,  and  resources 
of  the  American  people,  on  which  I  have  so  often  hazarded  my  all,  and 
never  been  deceived ;  if  elevated  ideas  of  the  high  destinies  of  this 
country  and  of  my  own  duties  toward  it,  founded  on  a  knowledge  of  the 
moral  principles  and  intellectual  improvements  of  the  people,  deeply 
engraven  on  my  mind  in  early  life,  and  not  obscured  but  exalted  by 


160  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

experience  and  age,  and  witli  humble  reverence,  I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty 
to  add,  if  a  veneration  for  the  religion  of  a  people  who  profess  and  call 
themselves  Christians,  and  a  fixed  resolution  to  consider  a  decent 
respect  for  Christianity  among  the  best  recommendations  for  the  public 
service,  can  enable  me  in  any  degree  to  comply  with  your  wishes  ;  it  shall 
be  my  strenuous  endeavor  that  this  sagacious  injunction  of  the  two  houses 
shall  not  be  without  effect. 

"  With  this  great  example  before  me,  with  the  sense  and  spirit,  the 
faith  and  honor,  the  duty  and  interest,  of  the  same  American  people 
pledged  to  support  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  I  entertain  no 
doubt  of  its  continuance  in  all  its  energy ;  and  my  mind  is  prepared, 
without  hesitation,  to  lay  myself  under  the  most  solemn  obligations  to 
support  it  to  the  utmost  of  my  power. 

"  And  may  that  Being  who  is  supreme  over  all,  the  Patron  of  order, 
the  Fountain  of  justice,  and  the  Protector,  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  of 
virtuous  liberty,  continue  his  blessing  upon  this  nation  and  its  govern- 
ment, and  give  it  all  possible  success  and  duration  consistent  with  the 
ends  of  his  providence !" 

No  change  was  made  in  the  cabinet,  which  then  consisted  of  Timothy 
Pickering,  secretary  of  state  ;  Oliver  Wolcott,  secretary  of  the  treasury ; 
James  M'Henry,  secretary  of  war ;  and  Charles  Lee,  attorney-general. 
On  the  establishment  of  the  navy  department,  the  next  year,  Benjamin 
Stoddart,  of  Maryland,  was  appointed  secretary  of  the  navy;  George 
Cabot,  of  Massachusetts,  having  been  first  appointed  and  declined. 

Our  ministers  at  the  principal  foreign  courts  were  the  following: 
Eufus  King,  of  New  York,  minister  to  Great  Britain ;  appointed  May 
20,  1796.  To  France,  Charles  Colesworth  Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina, 
September  9,  1796.  To  Spain,  David  Humphreys,  of  Connecticut,  May 
20,  1796.  To  Portugal,  John  Quincy  Adams,  May  30,  1796.  To 
Netherlands,  William  Vans  Murray,  March  2,  1797.  These  were  the 
only  foreign  countries  to  which  missions  had  been  established.  A  mission 
to  Prussia  was  about  this  time  created,  and  John  Quincy  Adams  was 
appointed  minister  to  that  country,  June  1,  1797 ;  and  his  place  in  Por- 
tugal was  supplied  by  the  appointment  of  William  Smith,  of  South 
Carolina.  Mr.  Smith  was  a  member  of  the  house,  and  had  been,  during 
the  whole  term  of  Gen.  Washington's  administration.  He  was  a  leading 
member  of  the  administration  party  in  that  body. 

The  relations  of  this  country  with  France  were,  as  stated  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  in  a  critical  condition ;  our  minister  having  been  vir- 
tually expelled  from  that  country,  and  new  license  having  been  given  to 
spoliate  on  our  commerce.  A  decree  had  been  issued,  authorizing  the 
capture  of  neutral  vessels  having  on  board  any  productions  of   Great 


MEASURES  OF  DEFENSE.  161 

Britain  or  her  possessions — a  decree  in  direct  violation  of  the  rights  of 
neutral  nations,  and  especially  of  the  treaty  between  France  and  the 
United  States,  providing  that  "  free  ships  should  make  free  goods." 
Numerous  captures  of  American  vessels  were  made  under  this  decree, 
and  most  of  the  vessels  were  condemned.  War  being  considered  as  not 
an  improbable  contingency,  the  president  regarded  the  occasion  as 
demanding  a  special  session  of  the  national  legislature  ;  and  accordingly 
convened  congress  on  the  15th  of  May,  1797. 

Jonathan  Dayton,  of  New  Jersey,  was  reelected  speaker  of  the  house. 
There  were  at  this  time,  in  both  bodies,  majorities  in  favor  of  the  ad- 
ministration, and  of  the  plan  and  purpose  of  convening  congress  at  that 
particular  juncture.  A  number  of  important  measures  were  adopted, 
both  for  the  preservation  of  peace,  and  for  providing  the  means  of  defense. 

An  act^as  passed  to  prevent  American  citizens  from  privateering 
against  nations  in  amity  with  the  United  States  ;  an  act  prohibiting  the 
exportation  of  arms  and  ammunition,  and  for  encouraging  their  importa- 
tion ;  an  act  to  provide  for  the  further  defense  of  the  ports  and  harbors 
of  the  United  States  ;  an  act  authorizing  a  detachment  from  the  militia 
of  80,000  "men,  to  be  in  readiness  to  march  at  a  moment's  warning,  and 
also  authorizing  state  executives  to  accept  independent  corps ;  also  an 
act  providing  a  naval  armament.  This  act  empowered  the  president,  if 
he  should  deem  it  expedient,  to  cause  the  manning  and  employing  of  the 
three  frigates,  the  United  States,  the  Constitution,  and  the  Constellation. 

To  provide  for  the  additional  expenditures  required  by  these  measures 
of  national  defense,  an  act  was  passed  for  "  laying  duties  on  stamped 
vellum,  parchment,  and  paper."  Some  of  the  duties  imposed  by  this  act 
were  as  follows :  For  every  piece  of  either  of  these  articles  on  which 
was  written  or  printed  a  certificate  of  naturalization,  five  dollars ;  for  an 
attorney  or  solicitor's  license  to  practice  or  a  certificate  of  admission, 
ten  dollars ;  papers  containing  the  seal  of  the  United  States,  four 
dollars ;  a  certified  copy  of  the  same,  two  dollars ;  for  receipts,  notes, 
and  other  ordinary  business  instruments,  from  twenty-five  cents  to  one 
dollar,  varying  according  to  the  amount  for  which  they  were  given :  in 
short,  all  kinds  of  business  paper,  insurance  policies,  inventories,  protests, 
&c.,  &c.,  were  liable  to  this  duty.  Another  act  imposed  an  additional 
duty  on  salt  imported ;  all  drawbacks  on  salt  exported  to  apply  to  the 
additional  duty  laid  by  the  act ;  and  a  farther  allowance  was  made  on  salt 
provisions  exported. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  justice  or  necessity  of  the  duty  on  the 
stamped  articles,  the  act  was  obnoxious  to  a  large  portion  of  the  people. 
Both  its  title  and  its  provisions  resembled  too  much  that  memorable 
measure  of  1765,  which  was  so  unsavory  to  the  colonial  fathers. 

]1 


162  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

These  war  measures,  however,  were  not  intended  to  supei*sede  farther 
attempts  at  negotiation.  Congress  being  in  session,  the  president  nomi- 
nated to  the  senate,  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney,  Elbridge  Gerry,  and 
John  Marshall,  as  envoys  plenipotentiary  to  the  French  republic ;  Mr. 
Pinckney  being  then  m  Holland.  They  met  at  Paris  in  October.  They 
addressed  a  letter  to  the  French  minister  of  foreign  aifairs,  in  which 
they  informed  him  of  their  appointment,  and  expressed  their  desire  to 
wait  on  him  at  such  an  hour  as  he  should  please  to  appoint,  to  present 
their  letters  of  credence.  A  verbal  answer  was  returned  naming  the 
hour. 

A  novel  mode  of  correspondence  with  the  American  ministers  was 
adopted.  Unofficial  persons  were  employed  for  this  purpose,  who  used 
the  letters,  X,  Y,  Z,  instead  of  their  names ;  as  Mr.  X,  Mr.  Y,  Mr.  Z. 
One  of  these  individuals  assured  our  ministers  that  Talleyr^d  had  a 
great  regard  for  America  and  her  citizens,  and  desired  a  reconciliation ; 
and  that  to  accomplish  it,  he  (X)  would  suggest  a  plan  which  Talley- 
rand would  probably  approve;  viz.,  that  certain  passages  in  the  presi- 
dent's message  to  congress,  being  offensive  to  some  members  of  the 
directory,  should  be  softened,  and  that  this  would  be  necessary  previous 
to  their  reception;  that  a  sum  of  money  would  be  required  for  the 
pockets  of  the  directory  and  ministers ;  and  that  the  United  States 
should  accommodate  the  French  government  with  a  loan.  X  could  not 
point  out  the  exceptionable  passages  of  the  president's  speech,  nor  the 
amount  of  the  loan  which  would  be  required ;  but  the  doceur  for  the 
pocket  was  twelve  hundred  thousand  livres — about  fifty  thousand  pounds 
sterling.  After  some  farther  conference  with  X  and  Y,  a  second  set  of 
propositions  was  made.  These  propositions  were  wholly  inadmissible ; 
one  of  which  was,  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  should 
declare  that  a  certain  decree  of  the  directory  did  not  contain  any  thing 
contrary  to  the  treaty  of  1778,  and  was  not  attended  with  any  of  the 
fatal  consequences  ascribed  to  it.  Y  at  length  remarked  :  "  But,  gentle- 
men, I  will  not  disguise  from  you,  that  this  satisfaction  being  made,  the 
essential  part  of  the  treaty  remains  to  be  adjusted:  you  must  pay 
money  ;  you  must  pay  a  great  deal  of  money. '''^ 

To  these  demands,  our  ministers  could  not  accede.  The  proposition 
for  a  loan  in  any  form  was  not  within  the  limits  of  their  instructions  ; 
and  they  proposed,  that  one  of  their  number  would  forthwith  embark 
for  America  to  consult  the  government ;  provided  the  directory  would 
suspend  all  further  captures  of  American  vessels,  ai^  all  proceedings  on 
those  already  captured,  or  which  had  not  yet  been  disposed  of.  This 
was  refused. 

At  one  of  the  conferences  our  ministers  were  told  by  X,  that  we  had 


DELATIONS  WITH  FRANCE.  163 

paid  money  to  obtain  peace  with  the  Algerines,  and  with  the  Indians ; 
and  that  it  was  doing  no  more  to  pay  France  for  peace.  To  which  they 
answered,  that  "  when  our  government  commenced  a  treaty  with  eithei* 
Algiers  or  the  Indian  tribes,  it  was  understood  that  money  was  to  form 
the  basis  of  the  treaty,  and  was  its  essential  article ;  .  •  •  but  that,  in 
treating  with  France,  our  government  had  supposed,  that  a  proposition, 
such  as  he  spoke  of,  would,  if  made  by  us,  give  mortal  offense."  Our 
ministers,  in  their  report  of  this  interview,  farther  say :  "  He  asked  if 
our  government  did  not  know,  that  nothing  was  to  be  obtained  here 
without  money.  We  replied,  that  our  government  had  not  even 
suspected  such  a  state  of  tilings.  He  appeared  sur^^rised  at  it,  and  said 
that  there  was  not  an  American  in  Paris  who  could  not  have  givpn  that 
information.  *  *  *  He  stated  that  Hamburg  and  other  states  of  Europe 
were  obliged  to  buy  a  peace ;  and  that  it  would  be  equally  for  our  in- 
terest to  do  so.  Once  more  he  spoke  of  the  danger  of  a  breach  with 
France,  and  of  her  power,  which  nothing  could  resist.  We  told  him  it 
would  be  vain  for  us  to  deny  her  power,  or  the  solicitude  we  felt  to  avoid 
a  contest  with  it;  .  .  .  but  that  one  object  was  still  dearer  to  us  than 
the  friendship  of  France,  which  was  our  national  independence ;  that 
America  had  taken  a  neutral  station :  she  had  a  right  to  take  it ;  no 
nation  had  a  right  to  force  us  out  of  it ;  that  to  lend  a  sum  of  money 
to  a  belligerent  power,  abounding  with  every  thing  requisite  for  war  but 
money,  was  to  relinquish  our  neutrality,  and  take  part  in  the  war.  To 
lend  this  money  under  the  lash  and  coercion  of  France,  was  to  relinquish 
the  government  of  ourselves,  and  to  submit  to  a  foreign  government  im- 
posed upon  us  by  force  ;  that  we  would  make  at  least  one  manly  struggle 
before  we  thus  surrendered  our  national  independence.  *  *  *  He  said 
that  France  had  lent  us  money  during  our  revolutionary  war,  and  only 
required  that  we  should  now  exhibit  the  same  friendship  for  her.  We 
answered  that  the  cases  were  very  different ;  that  Americar  solicited  a 
loan  from  France,  and  left  her  at  liberty  to  refuse  it;  but  that  France 
demanded  it  of  America,  and  left  us  no  choice  on  the  subject.  .  .  . 
There  was  another  difference  in  the  cases ;  that  the  money  was  lent  by 
France  for  great  national  and  French  objects :  it  was  lent  to  maim  a 
rival  and  an  enemy  whom  she  hated;  that  the  money,  if  lent  by 
America,  would  not  be  for  any  American  objects,  but  to  enable  France 
to  extend  still  further  her  conquests.  The  public  and  private  advance 
of  money  was  pressed  and  repressed  in  a  variety  of  forms.  At  length 
X  said  he  did  not  blame  us  ;  that  our  determination  was  certainly  proper 
if  we  could  keep  it ;  but  he  showed  decidedly  his  opir  ion  to  be  that  wo 
could  not  keep  it."' 

Through  the  agency  of  Z.,  an  interview  was  arranged  with  Talleyrand, 


164  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  minister  of  foreign  relations,  at  which  Mr.  Gerry  only  attended  on. 
the  part  of  the  United  States  ;  and  at  which  Tallej^rand  presented  the 
arret  (decree)  of  the  directory,  in  which  the  demand  was  again  made  of 
an  explanation  of  parts  of  the  president's  speech  to  congress  at  the  special 
session  of  the  16th  of  May.  He  was  sensible  difficulties  would  exist 
relative  to  this  demand  ;  "  but  that  by  our  minister  offering  money,  he 
thought  he  could  prevent  the  effect  of  the  arret."  On  being  told  by  Z., 
at  the  request  of  Mr.  Gerry,  that  the  envoy  had  no  such  power,  Talley- 
rand replied,  that  they  could  take  such  power  on  themselves,  and  pro- 
posed that  they  should  make  a  loan.  Mr.  Gerry  said,  the  uneasiness  of 
the  directory,  caused  by  the  president's  speech,  had  no  connection  with 
the  objects  of  the  mission.  Barras,  in  his  speech  to  Mr.  Monroe  on  his 
recall,  had  expressed  himself  in  a  manner  displeasing  to  the  government 
and  citizens  of  the  United  States ;  but  it  was  not  considered  by  our  gov- 
ernment as  a  subject  of  dispute  between  the  two  nations.  Having  no 
instructions  on  this  subject,  they  could  make  no  explanations  relating 
to  it. 

It  was  subsequently  proposed  that,  if  our  government  would  pay,  by 
way  of  fees,  the  sum  of  money  demanded  for  private  use,  although  the 
directory  would  not  receive  the  ministers,  they  might  remain  at  PariS; 
and  would  be  received  by  Talleyrand,  until  one  of  them  could  go  to 
America,  and  consult  our  government  concerning  the  loan.  This  singu- 
lar kind  of  diplomatic  correspondence  was  continued  until  about  the 
1st  of  November,  when  it  was  agreed  by  our  ministers  to  hold  no  more 
indirect  intercoifrse  with  the  government. 

Under  date  of  November  1 1 ,  they  addressed  the  minister  of  foreign 
affairs,  expressing  regret  at  the  loss  or  suspension  of  friendly  intercourse 
between  the  two  republics  ;  and  the  wish  to  restore  it,  and  to  discuss  the 
complaints  of  both  parties.  No  answer  having  been  received,  they  trans- 
mitted to  him,  on  the  17th  of  January,  1798,  another  letter,  of  great 
length,  in  which  the  whole  controversy  is  reviewed.  This  review  em- 
braces all  the  old  subjects  of  dispute  between  the  two  governments,  among 
which  were  the  course  of  neutrality  adopted  by  Washington ;  the  treaty 
agreement  that  "  free  ships  should  make  free  goods ;"  the  annoyance  of 
our  commerce  under  the  rigorous  decrees  of  France,  &c.-  Neither  did 
this  letter  receive  a  formal  answer.  Another  interview,  however,  was 
had  with  Talleyrand,  (March  2,)  at  which  the  proposition  of  a  loan  was 
again  the  subject  of  conversation.  Our  ministers  having  stated  that  this 
measure  would  amount  to  a  declaration  of  war  on  our  part  against  Great 
Britain,  and  that  they  were  expressly  forbidden  by  their  instructions  to 
take  such  a  step  ;  Talleyrand  argued  that  it  would  be  no  departure  from 
i^eutrality  to  stipulate  a  loan  payable  after  the  war  •  and  suggested  that 


UEtATIONS  WITH  FRANCE.  165 

^e  transaction  might  be  done  secretly.  Having  failed  in  this  artifice, 
he  conceived  another  for  compassing  his  end  ;  which  was,  to  acknowledge 
some  of  our  claims  for  property  taken  from  American  citizens,  and  then 
let  our  government  give  a  credit  as  for  the  payment,  say  for  two  years ; 
by  which  act  we  would  consent  to  leave  in  the  hands  of  France  funds 
which  might  be  used  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war.  This  proposition 
also  was  declined  by  our  ministers,  who  argued  that  such  a  transaction 
would  be  no  less  a  loan  than  the  one  before  suggested. 

On  the  18th  of  March,  our  ministers  received  a  loritten  communica- 
tion from  Talleyrand  in  answer  to  theirs  of  January  17.  The  ministers 
replied  at  length.  The  directory  having  intimated  a  disposition  to  treat 
with  Mr.  Gerry  alone,  (who  had  been  selected  from  the  party  which  was 
said  to  be  friendly  to  France,)  his  two  colleagues,  as  has  been  stated, 
returned  to  the  United  States.  Mr.  Gerry's  consenting  to  remain  in 
France  was  considered  highly  improper. 

On  the  21st  of  June,  1798,  president  Adams  transmitted  to  congress 
a  letter  from  Mr.  Gerry,  with  one  from  him  to  Talleyrand,  and  the 
reply  of  the  latter.  The  president  said  in  his  accompanying  message  : 
*'  I  presume  that  before  this  time  he  has  received  fresh  instructions,  (a 
copy  of  which  accompanies  this  message,)  to  consent  to  no  loans ;  and 
therefore  the  negotiation  may  be  considered  at  an  end.  I  will  never 
send  another  minister  to  France,  without  assurances  that  he  will  be 
received,  respected,  and  honored,  as  the  representative  of  a  great,  free, 
powerful,  and  independent  nation." 

The  2d  session  of  the  5th  congress,  (being  its  first  regular  session,) 
terminated  the  16th  of  July,  1798,  having  assembled  on  the  13th  of 
November,  1797.  A  large  number  of  acts  were  passed  during  this  long 
session.  Among  the  most  important  were  the  following :  An  act  to  pro- 
vide for  an  additional  armament  for  the  further  protection  of  the  trade 
of  the  United  States,  which  authorized  the  president  to  equip  an  addi- 
tional number  of  vessels,  not  exceeding  twelve,  nor  carrying  more  than 
twenty-two  guns  each  ;  an  act  for  the  increase  of  the  army ;  an  act  for 
the  protection  of  the  commerce  and  coasts  of  the  United  States ;  a,n 
act  for  the  defense  of  the  forts  and  harbors  ;  an  act  to  lay  and  collect  a  ' 
direct  tax  of  $2,000,000,  upon  real  estate  and  slaves.  An  act  was  also 
passed,  to  suspend  commercial  intercourse  with  France  and  her  depend- 
encies. By  this  act  vessels  of  the  United  States  were  prohibited  from 
going  to  the  dominions  of  France,  or  from  being  employed  in  trade  with 
or  for  persons  residing  therein,  on  penalty  of  the  forfeiture  of  the  vessel 
and  cargo.  And  French  vessels  were  not  allowed  to  enter  or  remain  in 
the  United  States,  without  a  passport  from  the  president,  or  except  in 
case  of  distress.     Another  act  was  passed,  to  authorize  the  defense  of  our 


166  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

merchant  vessels  against  French  depredations.  This  act  pipvided  that 
the  commanders  and  crews  of  American  merchant  vessels  might  oppose 
and  defend  them  against  search  or  seizure  by  the  commanders  and  crews 
of  armed  vessels  sailing  under  French  colors. 

At  this  session  was  established  the  department  of  the  navy. 

These  preparations  for  war  having  been  made,  the  public  mind  was 
soon  directed  to  Gen.  Washington,  as  the  man  to  be  placed  at  the  head 
of  the  army ;  and  the  intention  of  the  president  to  appoint  him  was  com- 
municated to  him  both  by  the  president  and  the  secretary  of  war,  Mr. 
McHenry.  In  his  answer  to  the  secretary,  after  having  animadverted 
upon  the  conduct  of  the  French  government,  he  says :  "  Under  circum- 
stances like  these,  accompanied  by  an  actual  invasion  of  our  territory,  it 
would  be  difficult  for  me,  at  any  time,  to  remain  an  idle  spectator  under 
the  plea  of  age  or  retirement.  With  sorrow,  it  is  true,  I  should  quit  the 
shades  of  my  peaceful  abode,  and  the  ease  and  happiness  I  now  enjoy,  to 
encounter  anew  the  turmoils  of  war,  to  which,  possibly,  my  strength  and 
powers  might  be  found  incompetent.  These,  however,  should  not  be 
stumbling-blocks  in  my  own  way."  But  before  he  could  give  a  definitive 
answer,  he  wished  to  ascertain  whether,  after  having  announced  his  final 
retirement,  public  opinion  would  approve  his  reappearance  upon  the  pub- 
lic theater  ;  and  whether  it  was  the  wish  of  the  country  that  he  should 
take  the  command.  Also  the  army  should  be  so  appointed  as  to  aff"ord  a 
well-grounded  hope  of  its  doing  honor  to  the  country  and  credit  to  the 
commander. 

His  reception  of  the  letters  of  the  president  and  secretary  having  been 
casually  delayed,  he  had  been  nominated  by  the  president  to  the  chief 
command  of  all  the  armies,  with  the  rank  of  lieutenant-general,  and  his 
appointment  unanimously  consented  to  by  the  senate,  before  his  answer 
reached  the  seat  of  government.  The  appointment  was  accepted,  on  con- 
dition that  he  might  himself  select  the  officers  for  the  high  departments 
of  the  army.  Presuming  his  wishes  would  be  acceded  to,  he  recom- 
mended Alexander  Hamilton,  for  inspector-general,  who  was  to  be  next 
in  command ;  and  for  major-generals,  Charles  C.  Pinckney  and  Henry 
Knox,  or  if  either  refused,  Henry  Lee.  Others  were  named  for  briga- 
diers, adjutant-general,  &c. 

Wise  and  proper  as  these  defensive  measures  were  generally  regarded, 
under  the  threatening  aspect  of  affiiirs,  they  met  with  a  determined  and 
vigorous  opposition.  Both  in  and  out  of  congress  were  men  whose  af- 
fection for  France,  the  most  flagrant  insults  and  injuries  were  insufficient 
to  weaken.  In  congress  were  vice-president  Jefferson,  Gallatin,  Giles, 
Nicholas,  Baldwin,  Livingston,  and  others  of  no  mean  rank.  The  moat 
conspicuous  of  those  out  of  congress,  were  Madison  and  Monr&e. 


RELATIONS    WITH    FRANCE.  167 

In  March,  1798,  resolutions  were  introduced  into  the  house,  declaring 
that  a  resort  to  war  against  France  was,  under  existing  circumstances, 
inexpedient ;  and  that  the  arming  of  merchant  vessels  ought  to  be  re- 
stricted ;  but  they  were  in  favor  of  fortifying  the  coast.  In  the  debate 
on  these  resolutions,  the  opposition  members  took  strong  ground  for 
peace  measures.  Their  opposition  to  measures  of  defense  has  been  im- 
puted to  the  design  of  keeping  the  country  in  a  condition  which  should 
compel  the  administration  to  accede  to  the  propositions  of  France.  The 
federal  members  contrasted  the  aversion  of  their  opponents  to  a  war  with 
France,  under  the  strongest  provocations,  with  their  eagerness  to  fight 
Great  Britain,  in  1794,  for  injuries  far  less  aggravated. 

The  president  had  been  charged  with  improperly  withholding  a  part 
of  the  correspondence  with  our  ministers  in  France.  Although  it  had 
been  deemed  inexpedient  to  communicate  certain  parts  of  it,  especially 
the  instructions  to  our  envoys,  of  which  it  was  not  proper  that  France 
should  be  informed,  while  negotiation  was  pending,  the  majority,  not- 
withstanding, assented  to  a  call  for  all  the  papers,  which  were  promptly 
communicated  by  the  president.  These  papers  were  read  by  the  parti- 
cular friends  of  France  with  feelings  of  disappointment  and  mortification. 
The  unceremonious  reception  of  our  ministers,  the  manner  of  conducting 
the  negotiation  on  the  part  of  France,  and  the  degrading  terms  upon 
which  alone  the  directory  would  treat,  placed  that  government  in  a  very 
unfavorable  light  before  the  American  people,  and  served  in  some  degree 
to  strengthen  the  administration. 

The  indiscriminate  publication  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  correspondence  since 
his  death,  has  been  deeply  regretted  by  many  of  his  warmest  and  most 
judicious  friends,  as  tending  to  mar  his  well-earned  popularity.  The 
nature  as  well  as  the  number  of  his  private  letters,  shows  him  to  have 
been  a  busy,  though  for  the  most  part  a  secret  actor  in  party  affairs.  A 
letter  addressed  to  Mr.  Madison  on  the  appearance  of  these  despatches, 
represents  him  as  still  disposed  to  fix  the  wrong  upon  his  own  govern- 
ment, and  as  hoping  that  the  effect  upon  the  public  mind  produced  by 
their  publication,  will  not  be  permanent.  He  says  :  "  The  first  impres- 
sions with  the  people  will  be  disagreeable,  but  the  last  and  permanent 
one  will  be,  that  the  speech  in  May  is  now  the  only  obstacle  to  accom- 
modation, and  the  real  cause  of  war,  if  war  takes  place.  And  how  much 
will  be  added  to  this  by  the  speech  in  November,  is  yet  to  be  learned. 
It  is  evident,  however,  on  reflection,  that  these  papers  do  not  offer  one 
motive  the  more  for  our  going  to  war.  Yet  such  is  their  effect  on  the 
mind  of  wavering  characters,  that  I  fear  that,  to  wipe  off  the  imputation 
of  being  French  partisans,  they  will  go  over  to  the  war  measures  so 
furiously  pushed  by  the  other  party."     The  "speech  in  May"  here 


168  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

referred  to,  Is  the  message  to  congress  at  the  extra  or  special  session, 
which  contained  the  language,  to  which,  it  will  he  recollected,  the  French 
directory  took  exceptions,  and  of  which  they  demanded  some  explanation 
as  one  of  the  conditions  on  which  they  would  treat  Information  of  the 
effect,  upon  that  body,  of  the  speech  to  congress  in  November,  at  the 
opening  of  the  then  present  session,  had  not  yet,  it  seems,  (April  6,)  been 
received. 

The  deep  concern  felt  by  Mr.  Jefferson  is  farther  manifest  from  a  sub- 
sequent letter  to  Mr.  Madison,  urging  him  to  assist  in  defending  the  op- 
position from  the  effects  of  the  publication  of  the  dispatches.  He  wrote  : 
"  The  public  mind  appears  still  in  a  state  of  astonishment.  There  never 
was  a  moment  in  which  the  aid  of  an  able  pen  was  so  important  to  place 
things  in  their  just  attitude.  On  this  depends  the  inchoate  movement 
in  the  eastern  mind,  and  the  fate  of  the  elections  in  that  quarter,  now 
beginning,  and  to  continue  through  the  summer.  I  would  not  propose 
to  you  such  a  task  on  any  ordinary  occasion  ;  but  be  assured  that  a  well- 
digested  analysis  of  these  papers  would  now  decide  the  future  turn  of 
things,  which  are  at  this  moment  on  the  careen."  He  had  previously 
•written  to  the  same  gentleman  :  "  You  will  see  in  Fenno  (publisher  of 
the  United  States  Gazette)  two  numbers  of  a  paper  signed  Marcellus. 
They  promise  much  mischief,  and  are  ascribed,  without  any  difference  of 
opinion,  to  Hamilton.  You  must,  my  dear  sir,  take  up  your  pen  against 
this  champion.  You  know  the  ingenuity  of  his  talents,  and  there  is  not 
a  person  but  yourself  who  can  foil  him.  For  Heaven's  sake,  then,  take 
up  your  pen,  and  do  not  desert  the  public  cause  altogether." 

By  the  aid  derived  from  the  publication  of  the  papers,  the  bills  for  the 
national  defense  yet  pending  were  easily  passed,  the  anti-war  resolutions 
having  been  dropped.  The  popularity  of  the  administration  was  rapidly 
increasing.  The  president  received  from  all  directions,  and  from  numer- 
ous bodies  and  public  assemblages,  addresses  approving  his  policy. 
Among  the  occurrences  at  Philadelphia,  we  give  the  following,  as  nar- 
rated by  Hildreth  :  "  Besides  an  address  from  five  thousand  of  the 
citizens,  presented  to  the  president,  the  young  men  adopted  a  separate 
address  of  their  own,  and  went  in  a  body  to  carry  it,  many  of  them 
wearing  the  black  cockade,  the  same  which  had  been  worn  in  the  Ameri- 
can army  during  the  war  of  independence.  This  was  done  by  way  of 
defiance  and  response  to  the  tri-colored  cockade  worn  by  all  Frenchmen 
since  Adet's  famous  proclamation,  and  by  not  a  few  American  citizens 
also,  even  by  some  companies  of  militia,  who  wished  to  exhibit,  by  this 
outward  sign,  their  extreme  devotion  to  the  French  republic.  Hence  the 
origin  of  the  term,  '  Black  Cockade  Federalist,'  which  became  ultimately 
an  epithet  of  bitter  party  reproach.     Such  was  the  warmth  of  party 


ACTS   PASSED    AT    SPECIAL    SESSION.  169 

feeling,  that  several  who  wore  the  new  emblem  became  the  objt!cts  of 
violent  personal  assault.  But  the  zeal  for  mounting  was  a  good  deal  in- 
creased by  the  rage  it  inspired  in  the  more  violent  democrats — a  term 
restricted  at  this  time  to  the  warm  partisans  of  France,  and  as  yet 
chiefly  employed  by  the  federalists,  along  with  the  term  Jacobin,  as  an 
epithet  of  reproach.  The  song  of  '  Hail,  Columbia  !'  written  by  the 
younger  Hopkinson,  had,  under  the  excitement  of  the  moment,  a 
tremendous  run ;  and,  though  totally  destitute  of  poetic  merit,  is  still 
kept  in  existence  by  the  force  of  patriotic  sentiment.  '  Adams  and 
Liberty,'  written  by  Paine,  of  Boston,  the  son  of  another  signer  of  the 
declaration  of  independence,  though  now  almost  forgotten,  enjoyed,  like 
^  Hail,  Columbia  !'  an  immense  popularity ;  both  songs  being  sung  at 
the  theaters  and  elsewhere  with  rapturous  encores." 

An  act  was  passed  at  this  session  "  for  the  relief  of  sick  and  disabled 
seamen."  This  law  required  the  master  or  owners  of  all  vessels  of  the 
United  States,  arriving  from  a  foreign  port,  to  pay  to  the  collector  at 
the  rate  of  twenty  cents  a  month  for  every  seaman  employed  on  board 
such  vessels ;  which  sum  he  was  authorized  to  retain  out  of  their  wages. 
The  money  thus  collected  was  to  be  applied  to  the  temporary  relief  of 
sick  and  disabled  seamen. 

An  act  was  also  passed  "  for  an  amicable  settlement  of  limits  with  the 
state  of  Georgia,  and  authorizing  the  establishment  of  a  government  in 
the  Mississippi  territory."  Georgia,  by  virtue  of  the  cession  to  her  by 
South  Carolina,  claimed  the  whole  territory  east  of  the  Mississippi  river, 
and  south  of  Tennessee.  To  the  western  portion  of  the  same,  the 
United  States  opposed  a  counter  claim  founded  upon  the  treaty  of  1783, 
by  which  Great  Britain  ceded  it  to  the  United  States,  and  upon  the 
subsequent  treaty  with  Spain. 

The  act  provided  a  joint  commission  on  the  part  of  the  general 
government  and  the  state  of  Georgia,  to  adjust  the  conflicting  claims  to 
the  territory  west  of  the  Chattahoochie  river.  All  lands  which  should 
be  ascertained  to  belong  to  the  United  States  were  to  be  disposed  of,  and 
the  proceeds  thereof  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  public  debt,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  territory  north-west  of  the  Ohio.  And  all  the  tract  of 
country  bounded  by  the  Chattahoochie  on  the  east  and  the  Mississippi 
on  the  west ;  and  on  the  north  by  a  line  from  the  mouth  of  the  Yazoo 
east  to  the  Chattahoochie,  and  on  the  south  by  the  31st  degree  of  north 
latitude,  was  to  constitute  one  district  to  be  called  the  Mississippi  Terri- 
tory, which  might  thereafter,  at  the  discretion  of  congress,  be  divided 
into  two  districts  with  separate  territorial  governments.  The  govern- 
ment of  the  territory  was  to  be  the  same  as  that  established  in  the 
north-western  territory,  except  as  to  the  restriction  of  slavery.     The  im- 


170  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

portation,  however,  of  slaves  into  the  territory  from  beyond  the  limits  of 
the  United  States,  v^tis  prohibited.  The  act  contained  a  provision,  that 
the  establishment  of  this  government  should  not  impair  the  rights  of 
Georgia  or  any  person  to  the  jurisdiction  or  the  soil.  Most  of  the 
measures  of  the  administration  hitherto  had  been  popular;  and  but  for 
two  certain  acts  passed  at  this  session,  ending  in  the  summer  of  1798,  it 
is  not  improbable  that  the  federal  party  would  have  acquired  a  degree  of 
strength  that  would  have  been  irresistible,  and  have  secured  its  perma- 
nent ascendency.  The  acts  referred  to  are,  "  An  act  concerning  aliens," 
and  "  An  act  in  addition  to  the  act,  entitled,  '  An  act  for  the  punish- 
ment of  .certain  crimes  against  the  United  States.'  "  No  one  would 
suppose,  from  the  mere  titles  of  these  acts,  that  they  were  the  famed 
"  alien  and  sedition  laws"  which  have  given  to  the  year  1798  such  polit- 
ical notoriety,  and  which  contributed  more,  probably,  than  any  other 
cause,  to  the  overthrow  of  the  federal  party  in  1800.  As  many  readers 
are  presumed  to  be  unacquainted  with  the  provisions  of  these  laws  which 
have  incurred  so  much  popular  odium,  an  abstract  of  them  is  here  given. 

Of  the  first  mentioned  of  these  two  acts,  the  1st  section  authorized 
the  president  to  order  all  such  aliens  as  he  should  judge  dangerous  to 
the  peace  and  safety  of  the  United  States,  or  should  have  reasonable 
grounds  to  suspect  were  concerned  in  any  treasonable  or  secret  machina- 
tions against  the  government  thereof,  to  depart  out  of  the  country  with- 
in a  given  time,  to  be  expressed  in  the  order.  Any  alien  so  ordered  tc 
depart  who  should,  after  the  time  limited  for  his  departure,  be  found  at 
large  without  a  license  from  the  president  to  reside  in  the  United  States, 
was  liable  to  imprisonment  not  exceeding  three  years,  and  was  never  to 
be  admitted  to  become  a  citizen.  On  satisfactory  ]3roof  being  given  by 
an  alien,  that  no  injury  or  danger  would  arise  from  his  residing  here,  the 
president  might  grant  him  a  license  to  remain  for  such  time  and  at  such 
place  as  he  should  designate.  The  president  might  also  require  a  bond 
with  sureties  for  his  good  behavior. 

Section  2,  authorized  the  president,  whenever  he  deemed  it  necessary 
for  the  public  safety,  to  remove  out  of  the  country  all  persons  in  prison 
in  pursuance  of  the  act,  and  all  who  had  been  ordered  to  depart,  and  re- 
mained without  license.  And  on  their  return,  they  might  be  imprisoned 
so  long  aS;  in  the  opinion  of  the  president,  the  public  safety  might 
require. 

Section  3,  required  masters  of  vessels  coming  into  ports  of  the  United 
States,  to  report  all  aliens  on  board,  the  country  from  which  they  came, 
and  the  nation  to  which  they  owed  allegiance,  their  occupation,  a  de- 
scription of  their  persons,  &c.,  under  a  penalty  of  $300. 

Section  4,  gave  to  the  circuit  and  district  courts  of  the  United  States 
cognizance  of  offenses  against  the  act. 


ALIEN   AND    SEDITION   LAWS.  171 

Section  5,  secured  to  aliens  the  right  of  disposing  of  their  property. 

Section  6,  limited  the  act  to  the  term  of  two  years  from  its  passage. 

All  courts  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  several  states,  having  crim- 
inal jurisdiction,  were  authorized,  upon  complaint  against  aliens  or  alien 
enemies  at  large,  to  the  danger  of  the  public  peace  or  safety,  and  con- 
trary to  the  intent  of  the  proclamation  or  other  regulations  established 
by  the  president,  to  cause  them  to  be  apprehended  and  brought  before 
any  such  court,  judge,  or  justice ;  and  after  a  full  examination  and  hear- 
ing, and  for  sufficient  cause  appearing,  to  order  their  removal,  or  to  re- 
quire sureties  for  their  good  behavior,  or  to  restrain,  imprison,  or  other- 
wise secure  them,  until  the  order  should  be  performed.  Marshals  of  the 
districts  were  to  provide  for  their  removal,  and  to  execute  the  order  for 
their  apprehension,  under  a  warrant  of  the  president,  or  of  a  judge  or 
justice. 

The  act  relating  to  "  the  punishment  of  certain  crimes  against  the 
United  States,"  or,  as  it  is  called,  the  "  sedition  law,"  provided  that  any 
persons  unlawfully  combining  or  conspiring  together,  to  oppose  any  meas- 
ure of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  or  any  of  its  laws,  or  to 
intimidate  or  prevent  any  officer  under  that  government  from  under- 
taking or  performing  his  duty ;  and  any  persons,  with  such  intent,  coun- 
seling or  attempting  to  procure  any  insurrection,  riot,  or  unlawful  com- 
bination, were  to  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor,  and  punishable 
by  a  fine  not  exceeding  $5,000,  and  by  imprisonment  not  less  than  six 
months,  nor  exceeding  five  years ;  and,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court, 
they  might  also  be  held  to  find  sureties  for  their  good  behavior. 

But  the  provision  deemed  most  objectionable,  was  the  second  section, 
which  declared  that  any  person  who  should  write,  print,  utter  or  pub- 
lish, or  aid  in  writing,  printing,  uttering  or  publishing,  any  false,  scan- 
dalous, or  malicious  writing  against  the  government,  congress,  or  the 
president  of  the  United  States,  with  intent  to  defame  them,  or  to  bring 
them  into  disrepute,  or  to  stir  up  sedition  within  the  United  States,  or 
to  excite  any  unlawful  combinations  for  opposing  or  resisting  any  law 
of  the  United  Siates,  or  any  act  of  the  president  done  in  pursuance  of 
any  such  law,  or  to  resist  or  defeat  any  such  law,  or  to  aid  or  abet  any 
hostile  designs  of  any  foreign  nation  against  the  United  States,  their 
people  or  government,  should  be  liable  to  be  fined  not  exceeding  $2,000, 
and  imprisoned  not  exceeding  two  years. 

The  act  farther  provided,  that  any  person  prosecuted  for  writing  or 
publishing  such  libel,  might,  in  his  defense,  give  in  evidence  the  truth  of 
the  matter  contained  in  the  publication  charged  as  a  libel ;  and  the  jury 
had  the  right  to  determine  the  law  and  the  fact,  under  the  direction  of 
the  court,  as  in  other  cases.     This  was  an  essentially  mitigating  provision 


172  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN 

of  this  obnoxious  law.  The  English  law  of  libel  was  at  that  time  a  part 
of  the  common  law  of  this  country.  The  defendant  in  a  libel  suit  v;as 
not  permitted  to  justify  by  proving  the  truth  of  the  statement  charged 
as  libelous.  Hence  the  common  expression :  "  The  greater  the  truth, 
the  greater  the  libel."  But  this  law  allowed  no  conviction  except  in 
cases  in  which  the  defendant  failed  to  furnish  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
his  statement.  This  provision,  now  incorporated  into  the  laws  or  consti- 
tutions of  all  the  states,  had  then  been  adopted  only  in  the  states  of 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and  Vermont. 

The  act  was  to  continue  in  force  until  the  3d  of  March,  1801,  and  no 
longer. 

These  laws  were  intended  to  counteract  the  schemes  of  the  unprin- 
cipled French  directory,  whose  emissaries  in  this  country  abused  the 
freedom  of  the  press  by  defaming  the  administration,  and  exciting  the 
opposition  of  the  people  to  the  government  and  laws  of  the  union.  They 
did  not,  however,  accord  with  the  disposition  and  liberal  views  of 
the  American  people.  They  were  of  doubtful  expediency,  even  under 
the  circumstances  that  gave  rise  to  them.  Much  less  toleration  would 
they  find  at  the  present  day.  Yet  when  it  is  considered  that  these  laws 
had  the  concurrence  of  a  majority  of  both  houses  of  congress  and  the 
executive,  and  were  approved  by  Washington,  Patrick  Henry,  and  other 
wise  and  good  men,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  there  were  some  cogent 
reasons  for  their  enactment.  The  seditious  conduct  of  Genet  alone  fur- 
nished a  powerful  inducement  for  the  adoption  of  some  measure  of  this 
kind.  But  there  were  at  that  time  many  thousands  of  Frenchmen  in 
this  country  combined  in  organized  associations,  which  were  believed  to 
be  dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the  United  States ;  and  an  equal  or  greater 
number  of  British  subjects  whose  residence  in  this  country  was  deemed 
unsafe  at  that  particular  juncture. 

Justice  to  the  many  good  and  patriotic  men  who  approved  these  laws, 
requires  us  to  add,  that  what  were  to  be  punished  under  the  sedition  act 
as  offenses,  were  already  punishable  offenses  at  common  law,  in  state 
courts ;  and  the  federal  courts  were  presumed  to  have  common  law  juris- 
diction of  the  same  offenses.  Besides,  similar  laws  had  been  enacted  in 
some  of  the  states,  during  the  revolution,  when  unrestricted  discussion 
was  not  at  all  times  deemed  compatible  with  national  safety. 

These  laws  gave  birth  to  the  celebrated  Virginia  and  Kentucky  reso- 
lutions of  1798  and  1799,  and  to  the  doctrine  of  nullification.  Astute 
politicians,  as  were  the  leaders  of  the  opposition,  readily  saw  that  these 
laws  might  be  turned  into  effective  weapons  against  the  administration, 
and  the  plan  was  adopted  of  obtaining  the  cooperation  and  influence  of 
the  state  legislatures.     At  the  request  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  Mr.  Madison, 


ALIEN    AND    SEDITION   LAWS.  173 

then  a  member  of  the  Virginia  legislature,  introduced  the  resolutions 
adopted  the  21st  of  December,  1798,  These  resolutions  declared,  (1.) 
That  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  was  a  compact  to  which  the 
Btates  were  parties,  granting  limited  powers  of  government.  (2.)  That 
in  case  of  a  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  other  powers, 
not  granted  by  the  compact,  the  states  had  the  right,  and  were  in  duty 
bound,  to  interpose  for  arresting  the  progress  of  the  evils,  and  for  main- 
taining, within  their  respective  limits,  the  authorities,  rights  and  liber- 
ties pertaining  to  them.  (3.)  That  the  alien  and  sedition  laws  were 
palpable  and  alarming  infractions  of  the  constitution.  (4.)  That  the 
atate  of  Virginia,  having  by  its  convention,  which  ratified  the  federal 
constitution,  expressly  declared,  that,  among  other  essential  rights,  the 
liberty  of  conscience  and  the  press  could  not  be  canceled,  abridged, 
restrained,  or  modified  by  any  authority  of  the  United  States ;  and  from 
its  extreme  anxiety  to  guard  these  rights  from  every  possible  attack  of 
sophistry  and  ambition,  having  with  the  other  states  recommended  an 
amendment  for  that  purpose,  which  amendment  was  in  due  time  annexed 
to  the  constitution ;  it  would  mark  a  reproachful  inconsistency  and 
criminal  degeneracy,  if  an  indifference  were  now  shown  to  the  most  pal- 
pable violation  of  one  of  the  rights  thus  declared  and  secured,  and  to  the 
establishment  of  a  precedent  which  might  be  fatal  to  the  other.  (5.) 
That  the  state  of  Virginia  declared  the  alien  and  sedition  laws  uncon- 
stitutional; solenmly  appealed  to  the  like  dispositions  in  the  other 
states,  in  confidence  that  they  would  concur  with  her  in  that  declaration  \ 
and  that  the  necessary  and  proper  measures  would  be  taken  by  each,  for 
cooperating  with  her,  in  maintaining  unimpaired,  the  authorities,  rights, 
and  liberties,  reserved  to  the  states  respectively,  or  to  the  people.  (6.) 
That  the  governor  should  be  desired  to  transmit  a  copy  of  each  of  these 
resolutions  to  the  executive  authority  of  each  of  the  other  states,  with  a 
request  that  they  should  be  communicated  to  the  respective  state  legisla- 
tures, and  that  a  copy  should  be  furnished  to  each  of  the  senators  and 
representatives  of  Virginia  in  congress. 

These  resolutions,  however,  did  not  go  to  the  same  extent  as  those 
drawn  up  by  Mr.  Jefferson  himself,  to  be  introduced  by  his  friends  into 
the  legislature  of  Kentucky,  and  which  were  passed  in  November,  more 
than  one  month  earlier  than  those  of  Virginia.  These  resolutions  de- 
clared that  the  union  was  a  compact  between  the  states  as  states^  instead 
of  the  people  of  the  several  states^  as  held  and  frequently  expressed  by 
Madison  since  that  time,  by  Jackson  in  his  celebrated  anti-nullification 
proclamation  of  1832,  and  almost  all  other  statesmen  of  note.  They 
farther  declared,  "  that,  as  in  other  cases  of  compact  between  parties 
having  no  common  judge ^  each  party  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for 


174  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

itself^  as  well  of  infractio7is^  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress  /" 
thus  denying  the  common  doctrine,  which  accords  to  the  supreme  court 
the  ultimate  right  to  judge  whether  a  law  is  constitutional  or  otherwise : 
and,  in  conformity  with  these  views  of  state  rights,  they  declared  the 
alien  and  sedition  acts  to  be  "  not  law,  but  altogether  void,  and  of  no 
forced  And  they  farther  made  the  broad  assertion,  "  that  in  cases  of 
an  abuse  of  the  delegated  powers,  the  members  of  the  general  govern- 
ment being  chosen  by  the  people,  a  change  by  the  people  would  be  the 
constitutional  remedy ;  but  where  powers  are  assumed  which  have  not 
been  delegated,  a  nullificatio7i  of  the  act  is  the  right  remedy  :  and  that 
every  state  has  a  natural  right,  in  cases  not  within  the  compact,  to  nul- 
lify of  their  own  authority,  all  assumptions  of  power  by  others  within 
their  limits." 

These  resolutions  also  proposed  a  "  committee  of  conference  and  cor- 
respondence," to  be  appointed  by  each  state  legislature,  to  obtain  the 
concurrence  of  the  co-states  "  in  declaring  these  acts  void  and  of  no 
force,  and  each  to  take  measures  of  its  own  for  providing  that  neither 
these  acts,  nor  any  other  of  the  general  government,  not  plainly  and  in- 
tentionally authorized  by  the  constitution,  shall  be  exercised  within  their 
respective  territories."  The  resolutions  containing  this  last  proposition 
being  thought  to  go  too  far,  they  were  so  modified  as  to  require  their 
senators  and  representatives  to  lay  the  resolutions  before  congress,  and 
to  use  their  best  endeavors  to  procure  a  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  acts  at 
the  next  session ;  and  they  also  requested  from  other  state  legislatures 
the  expression  of  their  opinion  in  regard  to  these  laws,  and  their  concur- 
rence in  declaring  them  void,  and  in  requesting  their  repeal  by  congress. 
A  full  discussion  of  the  question  of  nullification,  will  be  found  in  the 
history  of  Jackson's  administration,  in  subsequent  chapters. 

Neither  the  Virginia  resolutions,  though  accompanied  by  an  address 
to  the  people  in  support  of  them,  written  by  Mr.  Madison,  nor  those  of 
Kentucky,  met  with  a  favorable  response  in  any  other  state.  By  the 
legislatures  of  the  New  England  states.  New  York,  and  Delaware,  they 
were  expressly  disapproved.  They  served,  however,  iu  a  great  degree, 
the  purpose  of  their  authors. 

The  legislatures  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky,  at  their  next  sessions, 
replied  to  the  answers  of  the  state  legislatures,  and,  in  these  replies, 
reasserted  the  doctrines  of  their  resolutions.  The  reply  of  the  legisla- 
ture of  Virginia  consisted  of  a  very  able  report  prepared  by  Mr.  Madison, 
concluding  with  the  following  resolution  :  "  That  the  general  assembly, 
having  carefully  and  respectfully  attended  to  the  proceedings  of  a  number 
of  the  states,  in  answer  to  the  resolutions  of  December  21,  1798,  and 
having  accurately  and  fully  reexamined   and  reconsidered   the  latter, 


ALIEN    AND    SEDITION    LAWS.  175 

find  it  to  be  their  indispensable  duty  to  adhere  to  the  same,  as  founded 
in  truth,  as  consonant  with  the  constitution,  and  as  conducive  to  its  pre- 
servation ;  and  more  especially  to  be  their  duty  to  renew,  as  they  do 
hereby  renew,  their  protests  against  the  alien  and  sedition  acts,  as  pal- 
pable and  alarming  infractions  of  the  constitution."  The  report  and 
resolution  were  adopted  in  February,  1800.  A  few  months  thereafter, 
(June  25,)  the  alien  law  expired  by  its  own  limitation,  and  the  sedition 
act  on  the  4th  of  March,  1801. 

From  an  address  on  the  death  of  Mr.  Madison,  written  by  John  Quincy 
Adams,  in  1836,  at  request  of  the  two  houses  of  congress,  we  give  the 
following  extracts,  relating  to  the  alien  and  sedition  laws,  and  to  the 
resolutions  whose  history  is  sketched  above  : 

"  The  agency  of  Mr.  Jefferson  in  originating  the  measures  of  both  the 
state  legislatures,  was  at  the  time  profoundly  secret.  It  has  been  made 
known  since  his  decease  ;  but,  in  estimating  the  weight  of  the  objections 
against  the  two  laws  on  sound  principles,  as  well  o^  morals  as  of  politics, 
the  fact  as  well  as  the  manner  of  that  agency  is  observable.  The  situa- 
tion which  he  then  held,  and  that  to  which  he  ascended  by  its  operation, 
are  considerations  not  to  be  overlooked  in  fixing  the  deliberate  judgment 
of  posterity  upon  the  whole  transaction.  Mr.  Madison's  motives  for  the 
part  which  he  acted  in  the  drama,  are  not  liable  to  the  same  scrutiny ; 
nor  did  his  public  station  at  the  time,  nor  the  principles  which  he  asserted 
in  the  management  of  the  controversy,  nor  the  measures  which  he  pro- 
posed, recommended  and  accomplished,  subject  his  posthumous  reputation 
and  character  to  the  same  animadversions.  Standing  here  as  the  sincere 
and  faithful  organ  of  the  sentiments  of  my  fellow-citizens  to  honor  a 
great  and  illustrious  benefactor  of  his  country,  it  would  be  as  foreign 
from  the  honest  and  deliberate  judgment  of  my  soul,  as  from  the  sense 
of  my  duties  on  this  occasion,  to  profess  my  assent  to  the  reasoning  of 
his  report,  or  my  acquiescence  in  the  application  of  its  unquestionable 
principles  to  the  two  acts  of  congressional  legislation,  which  it  arraigns. 
That  because  the  states  of  this  union,  as  well  as  their  people,  are  parties 
to  the  constitutional  compact  of  the  federal  government,  therefore  the  state 
legislatures  have  the  right  to  judge  of  infractions  of  the  constitution  by  the 
organized  government  of  the  whole,  and  to  declare  acts  of  congress  uncon- 
stitutional, is  as  abhorrent  to  the  conclusions  of  my  judgment,  as  to  the 
feelings  of  my  heart :  but  holding  the  converse  of  those  propositions  with 
a  conviction  as  firm  as  an  article  of  religious  faith,  I  too  clearly  see  to 
admit  of  denial,  that  minds  of  the  highest  order  of  intellect,  and  hearts 
of  the  purest  integrity  of  purpose,  have  been  brought  to  different  con- 
clusions. 

"  If  Jefferson  and  Madison  deemed  the  alien  and  sedition  acts  plain 


176  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

and  palpable  infractions  of  the  constitution,  Washington  and  Patrick 
Henry  held  them  to  be  good  and  wholesome  laws.  These  opinions  were 
perhaps  all  formed  under  excitements  and  prepossessions  which  detract 
from  the  weight  of  the  highest  authority.  The  alien  act  was  passed 
under  feelings  of  honest  indignation  at  the  audacity  with  which  foreign 
emissaries  were  practicing,  within  the  bosom  of  the  country,  upon  the 
passions  of  the  people  against  their  own  government.  The  sedition  act 
was  intended  as  a  curb  upon  the  publication  of  malicious  and  incendiary 
slander  upon  the  president  or  the  two  houses  of  congress,  or  either  of 
them.  But  they  were  restrictive  upon  the  personal  liberty  of  foreign 
emissaries,  and  upon  the  political  licentiousness  of  the  press.  The  alien 
act  produced  its  effect  by  its  mere  enactment,  in  the  departure  from  the 
country  of  the  most  obnoxious  foreigners,  and  the  power  conferred  by  it 
upon  the  president  was  never  exercised.  The  prosecutions  under  the 
sedition  act  did  but  aggravate  the  evil  which  they  were  intended  to  re- 
press. Without  believing  that  either  of  those  laws  was  an  infraction  of 
the  constitution,  it  may  be  admitted  without  disparagement  to  the 
authority  of  Washington  and  Henry,  or  of  the  congress  which  passed 
the  acts,  that  they  were  not  good  and  wholesome  laws,  inasmuch  as  they 
were  not  suited  to  the  temper  of  the  people." 

Among  the  persons  prospcuted  under  the  sedition  act  was  Matthew 
Lyon,  a  member  of  congress  from  the  western  part  of  Vermont.  In  a 
letter  published  in  a  Vermont  paper,  he  had  used  the  following 
language  :  "  Whenever  I  shall,  on  the  part  of  the  executive,  see  every 
consideration  of  the  public  welfare  swallowed  up  in  a  continual  grasp  for 
power ;  in  an  unbounded  thirst  for  ridiculous  pomp,  foolish  adulation, 
and  selfish  avarice ;  when  I  shall  behold  men  of  merit  daily  turned  out 
of  office,  for  no  other  cause  but  independency  of  sentiment ;  when  I 
shall  see  men  of  firmness,  years,  abilities,  and  experience,  discarded  in 
their  applications  for  office,  for  fear  they  possess  that  independence,  and 
men  of  meanness  preferred  for  the  ease  with  which  they  take  up  and 
advocate  opinions,  the  consequence  of  which  they  know  but  little  of; 
when  I  shall  see  the  sacred  name  of  religion  employed  as  a  state  engine 
to  make  men  hate  and  persecute  one  another,  I  shall  not  be  their  humble 
advocate."  A  second  count  in  the  indictment  charged  him  with  making 
use  of  a  letter  of  Joel  Barlow,  then  in  France  in  some  diplomatic 
agency,  written  to  a  friend,  then  a  member  of  congress,  Abraham  Bald- 
win, of  Georgia.  Barlow  was  a  devoted  friend  of-  France,  and  a  bitter 
opponent  of  the  federal  party;  and  his  letters  to  this  country  very 
severely  berated  the  administration  for  non-compliance  with  the  wishes 
of  the  French  government.  In  this  letter  he  indulged  in  strong  cen- 
sures of  the  speech  of  the  president  to  congress,  and  said,  "  we  wondered 


DIFFICULTIES    WITH    FRANCE.  177 

that  the  answer  of  both  houses  had  not  been  an  order  to  send  him  to  a 
mad-house  :  instead  of  this,  the  senate  have  echoed  the  speech  with  more 
servility  than  ever  George  III.  experienced  from  either  house  of  parlia- 
ment." A  third  count  in  the  indictment  was  for  publishing  and  aiding 
in  publishing  the  Barlow  letter. 

Lyon  was  convicted,  and  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  four  months, 
and  to  the  payment  of  a  fine  of  $1,000,  a  part  of  which  was  remitted  in  . 
consequence  of  his  pecuniary  embarrassments.  A  petition  said  to  have 
been  signed  by  3,000  republicans  of  Vermont  was  presented  to  the  presi- 
dent for  his  liberation,  which  the  president  refused,  unless  Lyon  himself 
should  sign  the  petition.  Disinclined  to  submission,  he  was  compelled 
to  suffer  durance  for  the  full  term.  During  the  pendency  of  the  suit, 
he  was  reelected  to  congress.  After  his  discharge  from  prison,  he  went 
to  Philadelphia,  and  served  out  the  remainder  of  his  first  term  in 
congress. 

Assurances  were  given  to  Lyon,  that  when  the  republicans  should 
obtain  the  ascendency  in  congress,  he  should  be  compensated  for  his  suf- 
ferings. But  for  various  causes,  no  relief  had  been  granted,  when,  in 
1818,  he  again  petitioned  congress,  being  then  a  resident  of  Kentucky, 
and  was  again  unsuccessful.  In  1833,  many  years  after  his  death,  a  law 
was  passed  for  refunding  to  his  heirs  the  amount  of  the  fine  levied  upon 
him  by  the  sedition  law. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

DIFFICULTIES    WITH     FRANCE. TREATY     NEGOTIATED. DIVISION     OF     THE 

FEDERALISTS. PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION. 

The  5th  congress  commenced  its  3d  session  on  the  3d  day  of  Decem- 
ber, 1798.  The  president,  in  his  annual  speech  to  congress,  said  the  in- 
formation received  from  France  since  the  close  of  the  last  session,  would 
be  made  the  subject  of  a  future  communication ;  from  which  it  would 
appear  that  the  attempt  to  adjust  the  differences  with  that  power  had 
failed.  He  proceeded  :  "  You  will  at  the  same  tune  perceive,  that  the 
French  government  appears  solicitous  to  impress  the  opinion,  that  it  is 
averse  to  a  rupture  with  this  country,  and  that  it  has  in  a  qualified  man- 
ner declared  itself  willing  to  receive  a  minister  from  the  United  States 
for  the  purpose  of  restoring  a  good  understanding.     It  is  unfortunate 

12 


178  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

for  professions  of  this  kind,  tliat  they  should  he  expressed  in  terms 
which  may  countenance  the  inadmissible  pretension  of  a  right  to  pre- 
scribe the  qualifications  which  a  minister  from  the  United  States  should 
possess,  and  that,  while  France  is  asserting  the  existence  of  a  disposition 
on  her  part  to  conciliate  with  sincerity  the  differences  which  have  arisen, 
the  sincerity  of  a  like  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  of 
which  so  many  demonstrative  proofs  have  been  given,  should  even  be  in- 
directly questioned.  It  is  also  worthy  of  observation,  that  the  decree 
of  the  directory  alleged  to  be  intended  to  restrain  the  depredations  of 
French  cruisers  on  our  commerce,  has  not  given,  and  cannot  give,  any 
relief.  It  enjoins  them  to  conform  to  all  the  laws  of  France  relative  to 
cruising  and  prizes,  while  these  laws  are  themselves  the  sources  of  the 
depredation  of  which  we  have  so  long,  so  justly,  and  so  fruitlessly  com- 
plained. 

"  The  law  of  France,  enacted  in  January  last,  which  subjects  to  cap- 
ture and  condemnation  neutral  vessels  and  their  cargoes,  if  any  portion 
of  the  latter  are  of  British  fabric  or  produce,  although  the  entire 
property  belong  to  neutrals,  instead  of  being  rescinded,  has  lately  re- 
ceived a  confirmation  by  the  failure  of  a  proposition  for  its  repeal. 
While  this  law,  which  is  an  unequivocal  act  of  war  on  the  commerce  of 
the  nations  it  attacks,  continues  in  force,  those  nations  can  see  in  the 
French  government  only  a  power  regardless  of  their  essential  rights,  of 
their  independence  and  sovereignty  ;  and  if  they  possess  the  means,  they 
can  reconcile  nothing  with  their  interest  and  honor  but  a  firm  resistance." 

The  president  observed,  farther,  that  we  had  no  reason  to  regret  the 
adoption  of  defensive  measures ;  that  there  had  been  nothing  in  the 
conduct  of  France  to  induce  us  to  change  or  relax  them ;  and  that  "  an 
efficient  preparation  for  war  could  alone  insure  peace."  And  in  reference 
to  a  new  mission,  he  said  :  "  To  send  another  minister  without  more  de- 
terminate assurances  that  he  would  be  received,  would  be  an  act  of 
humiliation  to  which  the  United  States  ought  not  to  submit.  It  must 
therefore  be  left  with  France,  (if  she  is  indeed  desirous  of  accommoda- 
tion,) to  take  the  requisite  steps." 

To  the  speech  of  the  president,  both  houses  returned  answers  of  ap- 
proval, which  were  adopted  without  any  material  opposition. 

Although  no  war  had  been  declared  on  the  part  of  either  government, 
several  engagements  had  taken  place  on  the  ocean,  and  a  large  amount 
of  property  of  American  citizens  was  captured  by  French  cruisers.  There 
was  no  occasion,  however,  of  calling  out  the  army.  Induced,  probably, 
by  the  war  measures  which  had  been  adopted  by  congress,  France  indi- 
cated a  willingness  to  relinquish  her  demand  as  a  preliminary  to  nego- 
tiation, and  to  treat  on  reasonable  terms;  and  in  February,  1799,  the 


DIFFICULTIES   WITH    FRANCE.  179 

president  again  appointed,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate, 
three  envoys  extraordinary  and  ministers  plenipotentiary  to  the  French 
republic.  The  gentlemen  selected  were  Oliver  Ellsworth,  (chief  justice 
of  the  United  States,)  Patrick  Henry,  and  William  Vans  Murray,  then 
minister  resident  in  the  Netherlands.  Mr.  Henry,  though  approving  the 
measures  of  the  administration,  declined  the  appointment,  assigning  as 
the  only  reason,  "  nothing  short  of  absolute  necessity."  William  R. 
Davie,  formerly  governor  of  North  Carolina,  was  subsequently  appointed 
in  the  place  of  Mr.  Henry. 

The  president  soon  found  himself  in  a  serious  difficulty.  He  had,  as 
has  been  observed,  on  communicating  to  congress,  at  the  commencement 
of  the  session,  the  unsuccessful  termination  of  the  negotiation,  declared 
that  he  would  never  send  another  minister  to  France  without  assurances 
that  he  would  be  duly  received  and  respected.  The  course  pursued  on 
the  French  question  had  been  approved  by  his  own  party  and  by  a  large 
portion  of  his  opponents.  His  friends,  therefore,  did  not  expect  to  see 
so  ready  a  compliance,  on  his  part,  with  the  wishes  of  the  French  direc- 
tory. The  surprise  was  probably  heightened  by  the  fact,  that  congress 
had  just  passed  several  bills  in  favor  of  additional  measures  of  defense, 
and  one  for  continuing  the  non-intercourse  act  for  a  year. 

Pichon,  secretary  of  the  French  legation  at  the  Hague,  had  been  di- 
rected to  communicate  to  Mr.  Murray,  American  minister  at  that  place, 
a  willingness,  on  the  part  of  the  directory,  to  give  a  respectful  reception 
to  a  minister  from  our  government.  Intimations  having  been  given  that 
Mr.  Murray  would  be  acceptable  to  the  French  government,  that  gentle- 
man was  nominated.  Not  regarding  the  mere  intimations  of  that  gov- 
ernment of  a  disposition  to  renew  the  negotiation  sufficient  to  justify  the 
appointment  of  a  mission,  the  committee  of  the  senate  to  which  the  nomi- 
nation had  been  referred,  attempted  to  dissuade  the  president  from  the 
prosecution  of  his  design  ;  and  having  intimated  an  intention  to  report 
against  the  nomination,  the  president  sent  in  the  names  of  Ellsworth  and 
Henry,  who  were  to  be  added  to  the  mission,  but  were  not  to  leave  until 
more  direct  assurances  should  be  given  by  France  that  they  would  be 
duly  received.  Nor  was  Mr.  Murray  to  proceed  to  France  until  he 
should  have  received  such  assurance. 

Of  the  members  of  the  cabinet,  Messrs.  Pickering,  Wolcott  and 
M'Henry,  secretaries  of  state,  of  the  treasury,  and  of  war,  were  known 
by  the  president  to  be  decidedly  opposed  to  renewing  the  mission  under 
existing  circumstances.  The  nominations  were  therefore  made  without 
consulting  his  cabinet  or  any  of  his  friends.  This  slight  put  upon  his 
constitutional  advisers  produced  a  breach  between  himself  and  a  ma- 
jority of  his  cabinet  which  was  never  repaired.     Indeed,  his  course  en- 


180  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tirely  estranged  a  large  number  of  his  friends,  who  had  for  some  time 
been  disaffected  toward  him ;  among  whom  were  Gen.  Hamilton  and 
Gouverneur  Morris,  and  other  men  of  distinction  and  influence.  They 
professed  to  doubt  the  sincerity  of  the  French  government ;  and  they 
considered  it  derogatory  to  the  national  honor  to  accept  an  offer  to  nego- 
tiate, until  the  decrees  against  our  commerce  should  be  repealed.  An- 
other ground  of  objection,  it  has  been  suspected,  was  the  apprehension 
that  the  renewal  of  negotiations  under  existing  circumstances,  and  with- 
out a  direct  proposal  on  the  part  of  France  to  treat,  would  have  an  ad- 
verse effect  upon  the  popularity  of  the  party.  But  the  president  was 
averse  to  war.  However  cordially  it  might  have  been  supported  by  his 
party,  it  would  have  encountered  the  opposition  of  the  leaders,  and  per- 
haps of  the  mass  of  the  party  opposed  to  him.  Besides,  the  large  in- 
crease of  taxation  which  it  would  require,  he  apprehended,  might  not  be 
patiently  borne.  These  were  doubtless  among  the  motives  which  in- 
duced the  adoption  of  a  more  pacific  policy. 

Murray  having,  according  to  instructions,  informed  the  French  gov- 
ernment that  the  departure  of  Ellsworth  and  Davie  would  be  delayed 
until  positive  assurances  should  have  been  given  through  the  French 
minister  of  foreign  affairs,  that  they  would  be  duly  received,  Talleyrand 
promptly  returned  an  answer  from  the  executive  directory,  conveying 
"  the  frank  and  explicit  assurance  that  it  would  receive  the  envoys  of  the 
United  States  in  the  official  character  with  which  they  were  invested ; 
that  they  should  enjoy  all  the  prerogatives  which  are  attached  to  it  by 
the  law  of  nations,  and  that  one  or  more  ministers  should  be  duly  au- 
thorized to  treat  with  them."  The  very  compliant  and  anxious  minister 
added  his  "  sincere  regret,  that  Mr.  Murray's  two  colleagues  awaited 
this  answer  at  so  great  a  distance  ! !" 

On  the  receipt  of  these  assurances,  the  president,  against  the  wishes 
of  the  majority  of  his  cabinet,  ordered  the  envoys  to  prepare  for  their 
departure,  and  directed  the  secretary  of  state  to  make  a  draft  of  instruc- 
tions to  them.  By  these  instructions,  the  envoys  were  to  demand,  as 
indispensable  requisites,  compensation  for  all  losses  and  damages  sus- 
tained by  our  citizens  from  illegal  captures  or  condemnations  of  their 
vessels  and  other  property,  to  be  settled  by  a  board  appointed  for  that 
purpose;  the  guaranties  to  France  by  the  treaties  of  1778,  of  her  West 
India  and  other  American  possessions,  and  from  which  the  United  States 
considered  themselves  released  by  the  aggressions  of  France,  were  not  to 
be  renewed ;  no  aid  or  loan  was  to  be  promised  ;  no  engagement  was  to 
be  made,  inconsistent  with  the  obligations  of  any  prior  treaty  ;  and,  as  it 
respected  our  treaty  with  Great  Britian,  stipulations  of  the  25th  article 
thereof  must  not  be  interfered  with.      By  this  article,  the  contracting 


DIFFICULTIES    WITH    FRANCE.  181 

parties  were  to  allow  the  ships  of  war  or  privateers  of  each  other  to  carry 
whithersoever  they  pleased,  the  ships  and  goods  taken  from  their  ene- 
mies, and  to  enter  each  other's  ports  without  being  detained  or  seized. 
Nor  was  shelter  or  refuge  to  be  given  in  their  ports  to  such  as  had  made 
prize  upon  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  either  party,  unless  forced  by  stress 
of  weather,  or  danger  of  the  sea,  to  enter ;  and  then  they  were  to  depart 
as  soon  as  possible.  Nor  might  either  party  permit  the  ships  or  goods 
of  the  other  to  be  taken  within  cannoti  shot  of  the  coast.  And  by  this 
same  article  of  the  Jay  treaty,  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  had 
agreed  to  make  while  at  peace,  no  treaties  with  other  nations  inconsistent 
with  this  article  and  that  preceding,  which  made  it  unlawful  for  the 
privateers  of  the  enemies  of  either  party  to  arm  and  equip  their  ships  or 
sell  their  prizes  in  the  ports  of  the  other.  The  law  of  France  requiring 
the  confiscation  of  neutral  vessels  having  on  board  goods  coming  from 
England  or  her  possessions,  must  also  be  repealed.  The  envoys  were 
also  instructed,  if  there  should  be,  on  the  part  of  France,  any  unreason- 
able delay  in  commencing  the  negotiation,  to  relinquish  their  mission, 
demand  their  passports,  and  leave  the  country ;  and,  having  once  resolved 
to  terminate  the  mission,  they  were  not  to  resume  it,  whatever  fresh 
overtures  or  assurances  might  be  tendered.  It  was  expected  that  they 
would  conclude  the  negotiation  in  time  to  embark  for  home  by  the  1st 
of  April,  that,  on  their  return,  congress  might  be  in  session  to  take  such 
measures  as  should  be  required  by  the  result  of  the  mission. 

It  was  now  near  the  middle  of  September,  when  intelligence  was  re- 
ceived of  another  revolution  in  France,  caused  by  the  reverses  which  had 
befallen  her  armies,  and  which  were  such  as  to  excite  apprehensions  for 
the  safety  of  the  republic.  The  whole  directory,  with  one  exception, 
had  been  changed  ;  and  it  was  doubtful  whether  our  envoys  would  be  re- 
ceived by  the  new  directors.  In  this  aspect  of  afi"airs,  the  cabinet  unani- 
mously advised  the  president  to  suspend  the  missibn.  After  a  brief  con- 
sideration, however,  and  again  without  any  special  consultation  with  his 
cabinet,  and  in  the  exercise  of  that  spirit  of  independence  for  which  he 
was  distinguished,  the  president  ordered  the  speedy  embarkation  of  the 
envoys.  By  this  act,  the  president  rendered  the  separation  between 
himself  and  the  majority  of  his  cabinet  complete,  and  aggravated  the 
disatfection  of  many  of  his  party  into  open  and  avowed  opposition. 

Ill-advised  as  was  the  course  of  the  president,  considered  as  designed 
to  promote  his  personal  advantage,  it  resulted  in  an  amicable  adjustment 
of  difficulties — an  event  which  could  hardly  have  been  expected  if  he  had 
followed  the  counsels  of  his  more  belligerent  friends. 

Messrs.  Ellsworth  and  Davie,  the  new  envoys  to  France,  had  sailed 
from  Newport,  Ehode  Island,  on  the  3rd  of  November,  1 799,  by  way  of 


182  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Lisbon,  where  they  arrived  the  27th.  and  were  informed  of  the  revolu- 
tion at  Paris,  by  which  Napoleon  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  French 
government  as  first  consul.  Deeming  it  expedient  to  await  further  in- 
formation before  entering  France,  and  being  further  detained  by  contrary 
winds,  they  did  not  leave  Lisbon  until  the  21st  of  December,  when  they 
sailed  for  L'Orient ;  but  on  account  of  a  long  succession  of  storms,  and 
the  consequent  impossibility  of  reaching  that  port,  they  put  into  Corunna, 
on  the  16th  of  January,  18.00.  On  the  next  day  they  addressed  a  letter 
to  Talleyrand,  who  was  continued  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  express- 
ing the  hope  that  their  letter  of  credence  being  addressed  to  the  direc- 
tory, would  be  no  objection  to  their  reception  ;  and  that,  if  the  govern- 
ment should  view  the  matter  as  they  did,  passports  would  be  immediately 
sent  to  them,  and  one  to  Mr.  Murray  at  the  Hague.  Talle3Tand  said  in 
hia  answer,  that  the  envoys  had  been  "  expected  with  impatience,  and 
would  be  received  with  warmth,"  notwithstanding  the  form  of  their 
letters  of  credence  ;  and  passports  were  accordingly  sent.  They  reached 
Paris  the  2d  of  March,  and  found  Mr,  Murray,  who  had  arrived  the  day 
before.  The  envoys  were  duly  received ;  and  three  plenipotentiaries,  Joseph 
Bonaparte,  Fleurieu,  and  Rcederer,  were  appointed  to  negotiate  with  them. 
The  negotiation  was  commenced  with  due  promptitude,  and  continued 
until  the  30th  of  September,  when  a  treaty  was  concluded.  A  detailed 
history  of  the  negotiation  can  not  here  be  given.  There  was  great  dif- 
ficulty in  agreeing  upon  the  terms  of  a  treaty.  The  French  ministers 
were  unwilling  to  concede  our  claim  for  indemnity,  or  to  consent  to  re- 
linquish the  old  treaties.  It  will  be  recollected  that,  according  to  the 
instructions  to  our  ministers,  the  old  treaties  were  not  to  be  renewed. 
They  had  been  declared  void  by  congress,  having  been  dissolved  by  her 
aggressions  upon  our  commerce  ;  and  being  so  considered,  our  govern- 
ment had,  in  article  25  th  of  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  negotiated  by 
Mr.  Jay,  agreed,  that  the  ships  of  war  and  privateers  of  both  parties 
should  have  permission  to  enter  each  other's  ports  with  prizes  without 
being  subject  to  seizure  or  detention.  And  no  shelter  or  refuge  was  to 
be  given  in  their  ports  to  such  as  had  made  prizes  upon  the  citizens  or 
subjects  of  either  of  the  parties.  A  revival  of  the  old  treaties  with 
France,  would  restore  to  her  the  priority  of  rights  therein  stipulated,  in 
contravention  of  our  engagements  with  Great  Britain,  which,  however, 
might  cease  within  two  years  after  the  close  of  the  then  existing  war; 
but  would  cease,  in  any  event,  at  the  expiration  of  twelve  years  after 
the  ratification  of  the  treaty.  Our  ministers  being  bound  to  observe 
our  engagements  with  Great  Britain,  and  the  ministers  of  France  being 
unwilling  to  admit  the  nullity  of  the  old  treaty  of  1778,  which  would 
exclude  French  privateers  and  prizes  from  the  ports  of  the  United 
States,  an  arrangement  seemed  impracticable. 


TREATY   NEGOTIATED.  183 

France,  having  no  money,  was  unwilling  to  pay  indemnities ;  and  if, 
as  maintained  by  the  American  ministers,  the  old  treaties  were  not  in 
force,  we  had  no  lawful  claim  for  indemnity.  To  have  renewed  the  old 
treaty  would  have  compelled  us,  if  called  on,  to  furnish  her  succors  in 
time  of  war,  or,  if  not  furnished,  our  refusal  would  be  made  a  pretext 
for  her  to  withhold  the  indemnities.  The  French  ministers  at  length 
proposed  to  stipulate  for  mutual  indemnities,  with  a  recognition  on  our 
part  of  the  force  of  the  old  treaties ;  or  to  treat  anew  on  reciprocal 
terms,  without  indemnities.  As  neither  proposition  could  be  accepted 
consistently  with  their  instructions,  our  ministers  must  either  quit 
France,  leaving  the  United  States  in  a  serious  difficulty,  or  else  propose 
a  temporary  arrangement,  reserving  for  definitive  adjustment  those  points 
which  could  not  then  be  settled. 

To  the  adoption  of  some  arrangement,  there  were  several  strong  in- 
ducements. Our  position  toward  France  was  little  less  than  a  state  of 
war ;  while  the  successful  operations  of  Bonaparte  seemed  to  indicate  a 
general  peace  in  Europe ;  an  event  which  would  leave  us  alone  in  a  con- 
test with  that  power  :  Or,  if  the  war  should  continue,  an  arrangement 
was  necessary  in  order  to  relieve  our  commerce  from  exposure  to  the 
depredations  of  the  French.  Another  object  was  to  save  a  large  amount 
of  captured  property  not  yet  condemned :  there  being  more  than  forty 
ships  and  cargoes,  then  pending  for  decision  before  the  French  council 
of  prizes. 

A  treaty  was  at  length  concluded  the  30th  of  September,  1800.  Its 
principal  provisions  were  the  following  :  The  binding  force  of  the  old 
treaties,  and  the  mutual  claims  for  indemnities,  were  reserved  for  future 
negotiation.  All  public  ships,  and  all  property  captured  by  either  party, 
and  not  yet  condemned,  were  to  be  restored.  All  government  and  indi- 
vidual debts  due  were  to  be  paid.  The  vessels  of  either  party  were  to 
enjoy  in  the  ports  of  the  other  equal  privileges  with  those  of  the  most 
favored  nation.  The  provision  of  the  old  treaty  that  free  ships  should 
make  free  goods,  was  retained.  Provision  was  also  made  for  the  future 
security  of  American  commerce. 

The  article  which  allowed  French  privateers  and  prizes  equal  privi- 
leges with  those  of  the  most  favored  nation,  was  inserted  by  the  French 
ministers  after  repeated  declarations  from  our  ministers  that,  agreeably 
to  the  rule  of  construction  settled  by  the  law  of  nations,  this  stipulation 
could  have  no  effect  as  against  the  British  treaty,  unless  derived  from 
the  former  treaties,  which,  it  was  expressly  agreed,  were  to  bo  for  the  time 
without  operation.  This  article  was  deemed  of  less  consequence,  as  it 
was  presumed  the  United  States  would  soon  be  able  to  refuse  the  priva- 
teers and  prizes  of  any  nation  an  asylum  beyond  what  the  righty  of 
humanity  required. 


184  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Apprehending,  however,  that  the  government  of  Great  Britain  might 
regard  this  provision  as  contravening  the  stipulation  in  our  treaty  with 
that  power,  allowing  no  other  nation  the  same  privileges,  Mr.  King,  our 
minister  at  London,  presented  the  matter  to  that  government,  and  was 
told  by  lord  Grenville  that  they  saw  in  it  no  cause  of  complaint. 

Congress  met  this  year,  (November  17,  1800,)  at  Washington,  whither 
the  seat  of  government  had  been  removed  during  the  preceding  summer. 
Early  in  December,  Mr.  Davie  returned  with  the  new  treaty,  which  was 
a  few  days  afterward,  (December  15,)  laid  before  the  senate.  It  met  the 
decided  disapprobation  of  the  federal  senators  opposed  to  Mr.  Adams 
and  the  new  mission,  because  it  contained  no  provision  for  the  payment 
of  indemnities,  and  for  the  renunciation  of  the  old  treaties ;  and  the 
result  of  the  opposition  was  the  adoption  of  an  article  limiting  the  term 
of  the  convention  to  eight  years,  as  a  substitute  for  that  which  referred 
the  question  of  indemnity  and  the  old  treaties  to  future  negotiation. 
The  president,  though  he  considered  the  alteration  as  being  for  the  worse, 
ratified  it,  and  appointed  James  A.  Bayard,  of  Delaware,  as  minister,  to 
carry  the  treaty  with  the  amendment  to  France  for  ratification  by  that 
government.  Mr.  Bayard  declining  the  appointment,  and  the  presiden- 
tial term  of  Mr.  Adams  being  near  its  close,  he  left  the  matter  to  his 
successor. 

The  event  showed  the  mistake  of  the  senate.  "When  the  amended 
treaty  was  submitted  to  Bonaparte,  he  added  a  proviso,  that  the  expung- 
ing of  the  article  relating  to  indemnity  and  old  treaties,  should  be  con- 
sidered as  a  relinquishment  of  claims  for  indemnity.  With  this  addi- 
tional amendment  it  was  ratified  by  our  government.  Thus  did  France 
succeed  in  obtaining  what  she  had  proposed  to  our  ministers — a  new 
treaty  without  indemnities. 

The  press  appears  to  have  been  quite  as  much  relied  on  as  an  instru- 
ment of  party  warfare  during  these  early  political  struggles  as  it  is  at 
the  present  day.  And,  judging  from  the  specimens  which  the  history 
of  that  period  has  furnished  us  of  the  character  of  the  political  press,  as 
well  as  of  that  of  political  parties,  we  may  conclude  that  it  has  under- 
gone no  change  for  the  worse.  Several  papers,  during  the  two  first 
administrations,  were  conducted  by  foreigners,  who,  whatever  may  have 
been  the  merit  of  their  political  opinions,  were  very  far  from  doing  honor 
to  the  editorial  profession.  And  some  of  American  birth  could  scarcely 
boast  of  a  higher  standing.  Freneau's  National  Gazette  had  "  died  out," 
and  the  Aurora,  for  several  years  its  coadjutor  in  the  democratic  cause, 
was  now  the  accredited  organ  of  the  opposition  in  Philadelphia;  Benjamin 
Franklin  Bache,  its  former  editor,  grandson  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  had 
fallen  a  victim  to  the  yellow  fever  which  visited  that  city  in  1797;  and 


POLITICAL    WRITERS.  185 

had  been  succeeded,  as  editor,  by  James  Duane,  father  of  William  J. 
Duane,  Gen.  Jackson's  disobedient  secretary  of  the  treasury,  in  1834. 
He  was  born  in  this  country  of  Irish  parents,  and  went,  when  young,  to 
his  friends  in  Ireland,  where  he  learned  the  printer's  trade.  He  subse- 
quently established  an  English  newspaper  in  Calcutta,  (India.)  Having 
transcended  the  narrow  bounds  prescribed  by  British  laws  in  those  days 
to  the  liberty  of  the  press  in  that  quarter,  his  establishment  was  seized, 
and  he  was  compelled  to  return  to  England,  whence  he  emigrated  to  this 
country.  His  hatred  to  Great  Britain  and  British  laws  fitted  him  for 
the  editorship  of  an  opposition  paper.  Fenno,  of  the  United  States 
Gazette,  had  also  died  of  the  same  disease,  and  about  the  same  time  as 
Bache,  and  his  paper  passed  into  the  hands  of  his  son. 

One  of  the  political  writers  of  that  day  who  attained  to  considerable 
notoriety,  was  Thomas  Callender,  who  had  left  Scotland  to  avoid  prose- 
cution for  the  publication  of  a  libelous  pamphlet.  He  is  reputed  as  hav- 
ing been  a  man  of  intemperate  and  other  immoral  habits.  His  writings 
in  this  country  appeared  for  a  time  in  pamphlets  and  magazines,  of  which 
were  the  "  American  Annual  Register,"  and  "  The  prospect  before  us." 
He  published  also  a  paper  at  Bichmond,  called  "  The  Examiner."  He 
is  represented  to  have  been  a  powerful,  though  unscrupulous  assailant 
of  the  administration,  and  was  probably  an  effective  auxiliary  in  effecting 
its  overthrow.  By  certain  statements  in  the  last  mentioned  of  the  above 
named  publications,  he  subjected  himself  to  a  prosecution  under  the  sedi- 
tion law,  for  libel  against  the  president,  for  which  he  was  sentenced  to 
imprisonment  for  nine  months,  and  to  the  payment  of  a  fine  of  $200 : 
and  he  was  required  also  to  give  securities  for  his  good  behavior  for 
two  years.  By  the  aid  of  his  friends,  the  fine  had  been  paid  :  and  the 
term  of  his  imprisonment  had  expired  almost  simultaneously  with  Mr. 
Jefferson's  coming  into  office,  who  hastened  to  grant  him  a  pardon,  which, 
it  was  held,  entitled  him  to  a  remission  of  the  fine ;  and  the  president 
accordingly  ordered  it  to  be  remitted.  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  this  man 
was  two  years  thereafter  found  associated  with  the  federalists  in  attacks 
upon  his  benefactor,  Mr.  Jefferson,  who  had  rejected  his  application  for 
the  office  of  postmaster  at  Richmond,  and  whom  Callender  now  publicly 
charged  with  having  assisted  him  in  the  publication  of  the  paper  in 
which  the  libels  for  which  he  had  been  prosecuted  were  published.  In 
proof  of  the  charge  he  published  letters  from  Mr.  Jefferson,  which  dis 
closed  the  fact  of  his  having,  by  the  contribution  of  money  and  other- 
wise, aided  the  publication  of  the  "  Prospect  before  us." 

As  a  set-off  to  these  foreign  writers  in  support  of  the  opposition,  the 
federalists  had  in  their  service  the  celebrated  William  Cobbett,  an  Eng- 
lishman, who  came  to  this  country  in  1792,  and  who,  after  having,  under 


186 


THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


the  formidiible  name  of  Peter  Porcupine,  written  several  pamphlets  in 
favor  of  the  late  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  was  now  sending  out  his 
pointed  missiles  at  the  democrats  through  "Porcupine's  Gazette,"  a 
daily  paper  in  Philadelphia,  established  by  himself.  He  was  a  most 
caustic  and  effective  writer ;  but  his  influence  was  much  impaired  by  his 
enthusiastic  regard  for  his  native  country  and  its  institutions,  which 
often  brought  him  into  conflict  with  federal  editors. 

Commensurate  with  Cobbett's  love  for  Great  Britain,  was  his  hatred 
to  France.  His  strictures  upon  the  conduct  of  the  directory  were  very- 
severe,  and  scarcely  less  so  upon  that  of  the  king  of  Spain  and  his  min- 
ister in  this  country,  who  were  charged  with  subserviency  to  France  • 
the  former,  as  Cobbett  said,  being  "  governed  like  a  dependent  by  the 
nod  of  the  five  despots  at  Paris,  the  other  by  the  directions  of  the  French 
agents  in  America.  Because  the  infidel  tyrants  thought  proper  to  rob 
and  insult  this  country  and  its  government,  and  we  have  thought  proper, 
I  am  sorry  to  add,  to  submit  to  it,  the  obsequious  imitative  Don  must 
attempt  the  same,  in  order  to  participate  in  the  guilt  and  lessen  the 
infamy  of  his  masters."  Yrujo,  the  Spanish  minister,  hoping  to  main- 
tain an  action  against  Cobbett  for  libel,  had  the  matter  laid  before 
the  grand  jury  of  the  circuit  court  of  the  United  States  ;  and  the  latter 
was  bound  over  to  the  next  term  for  trial.  The  case,  however,  was 
never  tried  in  this  court.  Yrujo,  thinking  a  successful  prosecution  more 
probable  in  the  courts  of  the  state  of  Pennsylvania,  whose  chief-justice, 
M'Kean,  was  a  devoted  friend  of  France,  and  particularly,  of  the  Spanish 
minister,  concluded  to  resort  to  these  tribunals.  A  warrant  was  issued 
by  M'Kean  against  Cobbett  for  libels -on  the  king  of  Spain  and  his  min- 
ister ;  and  at  the  next  criminal  sessions,  the  case  was  brought  before  the 
grand  jury  to  whom  M'Kean  gave  an  elaborate  and  able  charge  ;  but  no 
indictment  was  found.  Other  attempts  were  made  by  this  judge  to  pro- 
cure the  conviction  of  Cobbett  for  libel,  which  did  not  succeed.  These 
occurrences  took  place  in  1797. 

During  this  year,  the  yellow-fever  prevailed  in  Philadelphia;  and 
Cobbett  attacked  the  opinions  of  Dr.  Bush  respecting  the  origin  of  this 
disease,  and  ridiculed  his  method  of  treatino;  it.  A  suit  for  libel  was 
commenced  against  Cobbett  for  damages.  The  trial  came  on  in  Decem- 
ber, 1709:  and  a  judgment  was  obtained  for  $5,000.  This,  and  other 
prosecutions,  (no  other,  however,  resulting  in  a  conviction  of  libel,)  were 
the  cause  of  his  return  to  England. 

In  March,  1799,  a  few  days  after  the  adjournment  of  congress,  resist- 
ance was  made  in  Pennsylvania  to  the  law  levying  a  direct  tax  upon 
houses  and  lands.  It  was  confined,  however,  to  the  counties  of  Northum- 
berland,  Bucks,  and   Montgomery.     The  measurement  of  the  houses, 


THE    SIXTH    CONGRESS.  -  187 

which  was  required  by  the  law  in  rating  the  assessment,  was  violently 
opposed.  A  large  number  of  rioters  were  arrested ;  but  they  were 
rescued  by  a  party  of  armed  horsemen,  headed  by  a  man  named  Fries. 
The  president  issued  a  proclamation  enjoining  submission  to  the  laws ; 
and  made  a  requisition  upon  the  governor  of  Pennsylviania  for  a  military 
force  to  enforce  them.  Fries  and  most  of  his  party  were  arrested  and 
taken  to  Philadelphia.  Fries  was  convicted  of  treason  ;  but  one  of  the 
jurors  having,  as  was  afterward  ascertained,  previously  expressed  an 
opinion  as  to  the  deserts  of  the  prisoner,  a  new  trial  was  granted.  Others 
of  the  party  were  convicted  of  misdemeanor.  Fries  was  tried  again  the 
next  year,  and  again  found  guilty,  with  two  others,  of  the  same  offense ; 
all  of  whom  were  pardoned  by  the  president,  to  the  great  displeasure  of 
many  of  the  federalists,  who  attributed  this  act  of  clemency  to  motives 
•of  personal  advantage. 

Tire  6th  congress  commenced  its  1st  session  December  2,  1799.  The 
house  had  obtained  a  decided  majority  in  favor  of  the  administration ; 
and  Theodore  Sedgwick,  of  Massachusetts,  was  elected  speaker,  over 
Nathaniel  Macon  of  North  Carolina,  by  a  vote  of  44  to  38,  The  third 
annual  address  of  the  president  was  delivered  the  next  day.  The  pros- 
perous state  of  the  country,  notwithstanding  the  interruptions  to  our 
commerce  occasioned  by  the  belligerent  state  of  a  great  part  of  the  world; 
the  return  of  health,  industry,  and  trade,  to  those  cities  which  had  lately 
been  afflicted  with  disease;  and  the  civil  and  religious  advantages 
secured  and  continued  under  our  happy  frame  of  government,  were  men- 
tioned as  subjects  demanding  the  gratitude  of  the  whole  American  people. 
The  president  called  the  attention  of  congress  to  the  judiciary  system, 
which,  he  said,  needed  amendment  "  to  give  due  effect  to  the  civil  admin- 
istration of  the  government,  and  to  insure  a  just  execution  of  the  laws." 

In  relation  to  the  French  question,  the  president  said  :  "  When  indi- 
cations were  made  on  the  part  of  the  French  republic  of  a  disposition  to 
accommodate  the  existing  differences  between  the  two  countries,  I  felt  it 
my  duty  to  prepare  for  meeting  their  advances,  by  a  nomination  of  min- 
isters upon  certain  conditions  which  the  honor  of  the  country  dictated, 
and  which  its  moderation  had  given  a  right  to  prescribe.  The  assu- 
rances which  were  required  of  the  French  government  previous  to  the 
departure  of  our  envoys,  have  been  given  through  their  minister  of  for- 
eign relations,  and  I  have  directed  them  to  proceed  on  their  mission  to 
Paris."     [The  history  of  the  mission  and  treaty  has  been  given.] 

The  two  houses,  in  their  answers  to  the  president's  speech,  expressed 
their  approbation  of  his  course  toward  France,  although  it  was  not  easy 
to  prepare  an  answer  which  would  give  satisfaction  to  the  president,  and 
receive  the  concurrence  of  those  members  who  were  opposed  to  the  new 
mission  to  that  country. 


188  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  business  of  the  session  had  scarcely  been  commenced,  when  the 
melancholy  intelligence  was  received  of  the  death  of  Gen.  Washington, 
which  had  occurred  on  the  14th  of  December,  1799.  The  announcement 
was  made  in  the  house  by  John  Marshall,  of  Virginia.  Appropriate 
demonstrations  of  respect  were  adopted  by  both  houses.  Probably  the 
death  of  no  other  individual  in  the  United  States  ever  produced  so  deep 
a  sensation  in  the  public  mind.      ^^^  •  ^  " 

Among  the  acts  passed  at  this  session  were,  an  act  making  farther 
appropriations  for  the  military  establishment ;  an  act  to  continue  the 
non-intercourse  with  France ;  and  an  act  to  continue  in  force  the  act  for 
the  defense  of  merchant  vessels  against  French  depredations;  an  act 
laying  additional  duties  on  sugar,  molasses,  and  wines ;  an  act  for  the 
preservation  of  peace  with  the  Indian  tribes  ;  a  bankrupt  law  ;  and  an 
act  providing  for  taking  the  second  census. 

An  act  was  also  passed  at  this  session  "  to  divide  the  territory  of  the 
United  States,  north-west  of  the  Ohio,  into  two  separate  governments." 
All  that  part  of  this  territory  lying  westward  of  a  line  beginning  at  the 
Ohio,  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  Kentucky  river,  and  running  thence  to 
fort  Recovery,  and  thence  north  to  the  Canada  line,  was  to  constitute  a 
separate  territory,  called  the  Indiana  territory,  with  a  government  simi- 
lar to  that  then  existing  over  the  whole  north-western  territory. 

To  facilitate  the  sale  and  settlement  of  the  western  lands,  which  had 
been  exceedingly  slow,  owing  to  the  defective  method  of  sale,  for  the 
purpose  of  increasing  the  revenue,  a  change  in  the  system  was  made  at 
this  session,  and  four  land  offices  were  to  be  established  within  the  terri- 
tory. Gen.  Wm.  H.  Harrison  appeared  at  this  session  as  the  first  dele- 
gate from  the  north-western  territory ;  and  to  his  efforts,  chiefly,  has 
been  ascribed  the  adoption  of  a  system  under  which  that  country  was 
afterward  so  rapidly  settled. 

The  disaffection  which  had  for  some  time  existed  in  the  federal  party, 
was  coming  to  a  crisis.  The  president  intending  to  spend  the  summer 
at  his  residence  in  Massachusetts,  and  being  indisposed  to  leave  the 
executive  business  in  the  hands  of  cabinet  officers,  a  majority  of  whom 
were  no  longer  his  friends,  he  determined  to  make  a  change  in  some  of 
the  departments — a  change  delayed  only  from  motives  of  political  ex- 
pediency. Nothing  but  the  dreaded  effects  of  a  cabinet  explosion  upon 
the  party,  could  have  prevented  either  their  dismissal  by  the  president, 
or  their  voluntary  resignation.  Just  before  the  close  of  the  session,  in 
May,  1800,  Mr.  Adams  requested  the  secretaries  of  state  and  of  war 
(Pickering  and  M'llenry)  to  resign,  which  the  latter  promptly  did;  but 
which  the  former,  preferring  a  direct  dismissal,  refused  to  do.  John 
Marshall,  of  Virginia,  was  appointed  secretary  of  state  in  the  place  of 


PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION.  189 

Mr.  Pickering,  and  Samuel  Dexter,  of  Massachusetts,  in  the  place  of 
Mr.  M 'Henry. 

Within  a  few  months  a  presidential  election  was  to  take  place  ;  and 
the  great  object  of  the  federal  opponents  of  Mr.  Adams  was  to  contrive 
a  plan  to  prevent  his  reelection  without  defeating  the  party ;  in  other 
words,  to  effect  the  election  of  some  other  federalist.  In  order  to  suc- 
ceed, their  purpose  must  be  concealed  from  the  mass  of  the  party. 

It  will  be  recollected  that  the  original  mode  of  electing  president  and 
vice-president  still  existed,  by  winch  the  presidential  electors  were  re- 
quired to  vote  for  two  persons  without  designating  the  office  to  which 
each  was  to  be  elected,  and  by  which  the  one  having  the  highest  number 
of  votes  was  to  be  president,  the  one  having  the  next  highest  was  to  be 
vice-president.  John  Adams  and  Charles  C.  Pinckney  were  the  federal 
candidates.  The  plan  of  Mr.  Adams'  federal  opponents  was  to  try,  by 
secret  exertions,  to  secure  the  largest  number  of  votes  for  Mr.  Pinckney. 
Mr.  Adams  knowing  their  scheme,  and  conceiving  their  oppositionr  to 
him  to  have  arisen  from  their  partialities  for  England,  and  his  own  desire 
to  avoid  a  war  with  France,  he  stigmatized  them  as  a  British  faction.  They 
were  by  some  suspected  of  actually  wishing  for  a  war,  believing  it  would 
be  a  popular  measure,  and  insure  the  success  of  the  party  at  the  next 
presidential  election. 

This  charge  by  Mr.  Adams  and  his  friends  against  these  federal 
leaders,  provoked  their  resentment,  and  incited  them  to  a  more  deter- 
mined opposition.  So  highly  inflamed  were  the  feelings  of  Hamilton, 
that,  against  the  remonstrances  of  some  of  his  friends,  he  wrote  and 
printed  a  pamphlet,  repelling  the  imputations  of  subserviency  to  Great 
Britain,  noticing  the  defects  in  the  character  of  Mr.  Adams  which  unfit- 
ted him  for  the  station  he  occupied,  and  maintaining  the  superior  fitness 
of  Mr.  Pinckney  for  that  office.  The  issuing  of  this  pamphlet  at  this 
time,  was  not  a  wise  measure.  It  was  intended  only  for  private  circula- 
tion among  the  leading  federalists  ;  but  as  might  have  been  expected,  it 
soon  passed  its  prescribed  limits,  and  portions  of  it  appeared  in  demo- 
cratic newspapers.  It  was,  however,  apparently  written  in  a  spirit  of 
candor,  and  was  not  discreditable  to  its  author  ;  and,  as  between  the  ac- 
cuser and  the  accused,  its  publication  was  justifiable. 

The  prospects  of  Mr.  Adams'  reelection  were  not  flattering.  He  had 
been  elected  in  1796,  by  71  votes  against  68  for  Mr.  Jeiferson,  and  there 
were  early  indications  of  another  close  contest,  with  the  chances  rather 
against  him  than  in  his  favor.  The  alien  and  sedition  laws  had  been 
doing  their  work,  wielded,  as  they  were,  by  the  skillful  leaders  of  the 
opposition.  True,  his  conduct  toward  France  had  been  mild  and  concili- 
atory ;   and  her  insults  and  injuries  had  been  borne  until  her  most  ardent 


190  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

friends  could  not  but  justify  the  change  of  policy  which  it  had  been 
deemed  necessary  to  adopt.  His  defensive  measures  were  on  the  whole 
popular ;  but  then  they  required  an  increase  of  taxation,  which,  though 
for  the  wisest  and  best  of  purposes,  is  always  regarded  by  many  as  a 
greater  evil  than  an  unconstitutional  law  or  a  national  wrong.  His 
efforts  to  maintain  friendly  relations  with  France,  and  his  precautionary 
measures  of  national  defense  when  threatened  by  war,  however  they  may 
have  checked  the  virulence  of  the  opposition,  yet  failed  to  gain  for  him 
many  active  supporters  from  that  party,  while  his  ready  compliance  with 
the  wishes  of  France,  as  we  have  seen,  seriously  affected  his  standing 
with  his  own.  Hence,  the  result  of  the  election  in  November  took  no 
one  by  surprise. 

The  2nd  session  of  the  6th  congress,  which,  as  has  been  stated,  was 
held  at  the  new  seat  of  government,  terminated  the  3d  of  March,  1801. 
At  this  session  was  passed  "  an  act  to  provide  for  the  more  convenient 
organization  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States  ;"  an  act  which,  from  the 
circumstances  connected  with  and  following  it,  obtained  not  a  little 
celebrity.  Under  the  act  previously  existing,  the  United  States  were 
divided  into  thirteen  judicial  districts,  which  composed  three  circuits. 
In  each  of  these  thirteen  districts,  two  courts  were  to  be  held  annually 
by  two  justices  of  the  supreme  court,  (then  six  in  number,)  with  the 
judge  of  the  district.  The  great  extent  of  these  circuits,  and  the  difl&- 
culties  of  traveling  at  that  early  day,  caused  great  delays  in  the  admin- 
istration of  justice  ;  and  the  subject  of  a  remedy  had  been  repeatedly 
urged  upon  the  attention  of  congress. 

By  the  new  act,  the  number  of  districts  was  increased  to  twenty-three, 
and  the  number  of  circuits  to  six,  with  three  circuit  judges  in  each. 
The  act  was  approved  February  13,  1801  ;  thus  giving  to  the  president 
less  than  three  weeks  before  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  office,  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  large  number  of  judges,  attorneys,  marshals,  &c.  Fill- 
ing the  new  offices  mainly  or  altogether  with  federalists,  loud  complaints 
were  made  by  the  opposition,  who  denounced  both  the  law  and  the  presi- 
dent by  whom  it  had  been  conceived,  as  was  alleged,  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  making  place  for  his  federal  friends.  The  opposition  having  ob- 
tained majorities  in  the  next  congress,  the  law  was  repealed  at  its  first 
session,  and  of  course  the  new  judges  sent  to  private  life. 

.  An  act  was  passed  near  the  close  of  the  session,  providing  for  a  naval 
peace  establishment.  Apprehensions  of  a  war  with  France  having  sub- 
sided, an  act  was  passed  at  the  close  of  the  session,  authorizing  the 
president  to  sell  all  the  vessels  of  the  navy,  except  thirteen  frigates 
which  were  named ;  six  of  which  were  to  be  kept  in  constant  service 
and  the  residue  to  be  laid  up  in  convenient  ports. 


PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION.  191 

UpoD  the  Gtli  congress,  at  the  present  session,  and  almost  simulta- 
neously with  the  passage  of  the  judiciary  act,  devolved  the  election  of 
president.  In  the  electoral  colleges,  Thomas  JefiFcrson  and  Aaron  Burr, 
the  republican  candidates,  had  each  received  73  votes.  The  two  federal 
candidates  had  received,  John  Adams,  65,  and  Charles  C.  Pinckney, 
64  ;  one  vote  having  been  given  to  John  Jay.  The  votes  for  Jefferson 
and  Burr  being  equal,  the  house  of  representatives,  voting  by  states, 
must  determine  the  election. 

There  being  now  sixteen  states  in  the  union,  the  vote  of  nine  states 
was  necessary  to  a  choice,  which,  after  a  tedious  balloting,  was  at  length 
obtained  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  on  the  36th  ballot.  Although  both  were  re- 
publicans, Mr.  Burr  being  from  a  northern  state,  (New  York)  and  the 
supposition  that  he  would,  if  elected,  give  less  strength  to  his  party  than 
Mr.  Jefferson,  the  former  was  the  least  exceptionable  to  the  federal 
members  generally,  whose  intention  it  was  early  known  to  be,  to  vote  for 
him,  though  against  the  remonstrances,  it  is  said,  of  Hamilton,  who,  in 
a  letter  to  an  eastern  friend,  gave  the  following  striking  delineation  of 
his  character : 

"  I  trust  New  England,  at  least,  will  not  fall  into  the  snare.  There 
is  no  doubt  that,  upon  every  prudent  and  virtuous  calculation,  Jefferson 
is  to  be  preferred.  He  is  by  far  not  so  dangerous  q,  man,  and  he  has 
pretensions  to  character.  As  to  Burr,  there  is  nothing  in  his  favor.  His 
private  character  is  not  defended  by  his  most  partial  friends.  He  in 
bankrupt  beyond  redemption,  except  by  the  plunder  of  his  country. 
His  public  principles  have  no  other  spring  or  aim  than  his  own  aggran- 
dizement. If  he  can,  he  will  certainly  disturb  our  institutions  to  secure 
himself  permanent  power,  and  with  it  wealth. 

"  Let  it  not  be  imagined  that  Burr  can  be  won  to  federal  views.  It  is 
a  vain  hope.  Stronger  ties  and  stronger  inducements  will  impel  him  in 
a  contrary  direction.  His  ambition  will  not  be  content  with  those 
objects  which  virtuous  men  of  either  party  will  allot  to  it;  and  his  situ- 
ation and  his  habits  will  oblige  him  to  have  recourse  to  corrupt  ex- 
pedients, from  which  ho  will  be  restrained  by  no  moral  scruples.  To  ac- 
complish his  ends,  he  must  loan  upon  unprincipled  men,  and  will  continue 
to  adhere  to  the  myrmidons  who  have  hitherto  surrounded  him.  To  these 
he  will  no  doubt  add  able  rogues  of  the  federal  party ;  but  he  will 
employ  the  rogues  of  all  parties  to  overrule  the  good  men  of  all  parties, 
and  to  promote  projects  which  wise  men  of  every  description  will  disap- 
prove. These  things  are  to  be  inferred  with  moral  certainty  from  the 
character  of  the  man.  Every  step  of  his  career  proves  that  he  has 
formed  himself  on  the  model  of  Catiline ;  and  he  is  too  cold-blooded 
and  determined  a  conspirator  ever  to  change  his  plan." 


192  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  balloting  continued  about  a  week ;  Jefferson  receiving  the  votes 
of  eight  states :  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  North 
Carolina,  Georgia,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee.  Burr  received  the  votes 
of  six  states  :  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecti- 
cut, Delaware,  and  South  Carolina.  Vermont  and  Maryland  were  equally 
divided.  Had  all  the  federal  members  voted  for  Burr,  he  would  have 
had  a  plurality  of  the  states.  The  division  of  Maryland  was  caused  by 
one  of  the  federal  representatives  voting  for  Jefferson  in  conformity  with 
the  wishes  of  his  constituents ;  and  the  single  member  from  Georo-ia,  a 
federalist,  (his  colleague  having  died,)  did  the  same ;  as  did  also  one  of 
the  North  Carolina  members  ;  but  for  which,  this  state  would  have  been 
divided ;  which  would  have  given  Burr  eight  states,  Jefferson  six,  and 
leaving  Vermont  and  North  Carolina  without  a  vote.  By  the  absence 
of  Morris,  of  Vermont,  a  federalist,  and  by  Craik  and  Baer,  of  Mary- 
land, also  federalists,  casting  blank  ballots,  the  36th  ballot  gave  Jeffer- 
son ten  states. 

It  was  this  election  which  led  to  the  change  in  the  mode  of  electing 
president  and  vice-president,  by  the  adoption  of  the  12th  article  of 
amendments. 

Connected  with  the  history  of  this  election,  are  certain  statements 
which  involve  the  honor  and  veracity  of  certain  distinguished  gentlemen. 
The  design  was  charged  upon  the  federalists  of  standing  out  and  pre- 
venting an  election,  and  of  passing  an  act  to  vest  the  executive  authority 
in  some  high  officer  of  the  government.  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  a  letter  of  the 
15th  of  February,  wrote  to  Mr.  Monroe  as  follows  :  '^  Four  days  of  bal- 
loting have  produced  not  a  single  change  of  a  vote.  Yet  it  is  confident- 
ly believed  that  to-morrow  there  is  to  be  a  coalition.  I  know  of  no 
foundation  for  this  belief.  If  they  could  have  been  permitted  to  pass  a 
law  for  putting  the  government  into  the  hands  of  an  officer,  they  would 
certainly  have  prevented  an  election.  But  we  thought  it  best  to  declare 
openly  and  firmly,  one  and  all,  that  the  day  such  an  act  passed,  the  mid- 
dle stajles  would  arm,  and  that  no  such  usurpation,  even  for  a  single  day, 
should  be  submitted  to.  This  first  shook  them ;  and  they  were  com- 
pletely alarmed  at  the  resource  for  which  we  declared,  to  wit,  a  conven- 
tion to  reorganize  the  government  and  to  amend  it.  The  very  word  con- 
vention gives  them  the  horrors,  aS;  in  the  present  democratical  spirit  of 
America,  they  fear  they  should  lose  some  of  the  favorite  morsels  of  the 
constitution.  Many  attempts  have  been  made  to  obtain  terms  and  pro- 
mises from  me.  I  have  declared  to  them  unequivocally,  that  I  would 
not  receive  the  government  on  capitulation ;  that  I  would  not  go  into  it 
with  my  hands  tied." 

Among  the  persons  implicated  in  this  charge,  was  James  A.  Bayard^ 


PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION.  193 

of  Delaware,  afterward  senator  in  congress,  and  one  of  the  commissioners 
who  negotiated  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Great  Britain  in  1814.  Mr 
Bayard,  who  is  universally  conceded  to  have  maintained  through  life  a 
character  unblemished  and  above  suspicion,  in  exculpation  of  himself, 
made  a  deposition,  April  3,  1806,  of  which  the  following  are  extracts : 

"  Messrs.  Baer  and  Craik,  members  of  the  house  of  representatives 
from  Maryland,  and  General  Morris,  a  member  of  the  house  from  Ver- 
mont, and  myself,  having  the  power  to  determine  the  votes  of  the  states, 
from  similarity  of  views  and  opinions,  during  the  pendency  of  the  elec- 
tion, made  an  agreement  to  vote  together.  We  foresaw  that  a  crisis 
was  approaching  which  might  probably  force  us  to  separate  in  our  votes 
from  the  party  with  whom  we  usually  acted.  We  were  determined  to 
make  a  president,  and  the  period  of  Mr.  Adams'  administration  was 
rapidly  approaching. 

"  In  determining  to  recede  from  the  opposition  to  Mr.  Jefferson,  it 
occurred  to  us,  that,  probably,  instead  of  being  obliged  to  surrender  at 
discretion,  we  might  obtain  terms  of  capitulation.  The  gentlemen  whose 
names  I  have  mentioned,  authorized  me  to  declare  their  concurrence  with 
me  upon  the  best  terms  that  could  be  procured.  The  vote  of  either  of 
us  was  sufficient  to  decide  the  choice.  With  a  view  to  the  end  mentioned, 
I  applied  to  Mr.  John  Nicholas,  a  member  of  the  house  from  Virginia, 
who  was  a  particular  friend  of  jMr.  Jefferson.  I  stated  to  Mr.  Nicholas 
that  if  certain  points  of  the  future  administration  could  be  understood 
and  arranged  with  Mr.  Jefferson,  I  was  authorized  to  say  that  three 
states  would  withdraw  from  an  opposition  to  his  election.  He  asked  me 
what  those  points  were ;  I  answered.  First,  sir,  the  support  of  the  public 
credit ;  secondly,  the  maintenance  of  the  naval  system  ;  and  lastly,  that 
subordinate  public  officers  employed  only  in  the  execution  of  details, 
established  by  law,  shall  not  be  removed  from  office  on  the  ground  of 
their  political  character,  nor  without  complaint  against  their  conduct.  I 
explained  myself,  that  I  considered  it  not  only  reasonable,  but  necessary, 
that  offices  of  high  discretion  and  confidence  should  be  filled  by  men  of 
Mr.  Jefferson's  choice.  I  exemplified,  by  mentioning,  on  the  one  hand, 
the  offices  of  the  secretaries  of  state,  treasury,  foreign  ministers,  &c. ; 
and  on  the  other,  the  collectors  of  ports,  &c.  Mr.  Nicholas  answered 
me,  that  he  considered  the  points  very  reasonable,  that  he  was  satis- 
fied that  they  corresponded  with  the  views  and  intentions  of  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son, and  he  knew  him  well.  That  he  was  acquainted  with  most  of  the 
gentlemen  who  would  probably  be  about  him  and  enjoy  his  confidence, 
in  case  he  became  president,  and  that  if  I  would  be  satisfied  with  his  as- 
surance, he  could  solemnly  declare  it  as  his  opinion,  that  Mr.  Jefferson, 
in  his  administration,  would  not  depart  from  the  points  I  proposed.     I 

13 


194  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

replied  to  Mr.  Nicholas,  that  I  had  not  the  least  doubt  of  the  sincerity 
of  his  declaration,  and  that  his  opinion  was  perfectly  correct,  but  that  I 
wanted  an  engagement,  and  that  if  the  points  could  in  any  form  be  un- 
derstood as  conceded  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  the  election  should  be  ended ; 
and  proposed  to  him  to  consult  Mr.  Jefferson.  This  he  declined,  and 
said  he  could  do  no  more  than  give  me  the  assurance  of  his  own  opinion 
as  to  the  sentiments  and  designs  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and  his  friends.  I 
told  him  that  was  not  sufficient,  that  we  should  not  surrender  without 
better  terms.  Upon  this  we  separated  ;  and  I  shortly  after  met  with 
General  Smith,  to  whom  I  unfolded  myself  in  the  same  manner  that  I 
had  done  to  Mr.  Nicholas.  In  explaining  myself  to  him  in  relation  to 
the  nature  of  the  offices  alluded  to,  I  mentioned  the  offices  of  George 
Latimer,  collector  of  the  port  of  Philadelphia,  and  Allen  M'Lane,  col- 
lector of  Wilmington.  General  Smith  gave  me  the  same  assurance  as  to 
the  observance  by  Mr.  Jefferson  of  the  points  which  I  had  stated,  which 
Mr.  Nicholas  had  done.  I  told  him  I  should  not  be  satisfied,  nor  agree 
to  yield,  till  I  had  the  assurance  of  Mr.  Jefferson  himself;  but  that  if  he 
would  consult  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  bring  the  assurance  from  him,  the 
election  should  be  ended.  The  general  made  no  difficulty  in  consulting 
Mr.  Jefferson,  and  proposed  giving  me  his  answer  the  next  morning. 
The  next  day,  upon  our  meeting.  General  Smitli  informed  me  that  he 
had  seen  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  stated  to  him  the  points  mentioned,  and  was 
authorized  by  him  to.  say,  that  they  corresponded  with  his  views  and 
intentions,  and  that  we  might  confide  in  him  accordingly.  The  opposi- 
tion of  Vermont,  Maryland,  and  Delaware,  was  immediately  withdrawn, 
and  Mr.  Jefferson  was  made  president  by  the  votes  of  ten  states." 

In  the  "great  debate"  in  the  senate,  January,  1830,  Mr.  Ilayne 
brought  into  the  senate  the  4th  volume  of  Jefferson's  memoirs  for  the 
purpose  of  reference.  Certain  other  senators  called  the  attention  of  Mr. 
Clayton,  of  Delaware,  to  the  following  passage  which  they  had  discovered 
in  the  volume  : — "  February  the  12th,  1801. — -Edward  Livingston  tells 
me  that  Bayard  applied  to-day,  or  last  night,  to  Gen.  Samuel  Smith,  and 
represented  to  him  the  expediency  of  coming  over  to  the  states  who  vote 
for  Burr ;  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  way  of  appointment  which  he 
might  not  command,  and  particularly  mentioned  the  secretaryship  of 
the  navy.  Smith  asked  him  if  he  was  authorized  to  make  the  offer. 
He  said  he  was  authorized.  Smith  told  this  to  Livingston,  and  to  W. 
C.  Nicholas,  who  confirms  it  to  me,"  &c. 

Messrs.  Livingston  and  Smith  being  at  this  time  (1830)  both  members 
of  the  senate,  Mr.  Clayton,  in  order  to  rescue  the  character  of  his  de- 
ceased predecessor  from  unjust  reproach,  called  upon  the  senators  from 
Louisiana  and  Maryland  to  disprove  the  above  statement ;  both  of  whom 


PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION.  195 

<leclared  that  they  had  no  recollection  of  such  a  transaction.  In  addi- 
tion to  this  testimony,  the  sons  of  the  late  Mr.  Bayard  published  a  letter 
from  George  Baer,  one  of  the  federal  members  from  Maryland,  in  1801, 
addressed  to  Richard  H.  Bayard,  under  date  of  April  19, 1830,  in  which 
Mr.  Baer  said : — "  Previous  to  and  pending  the  election,  rumors  were 
industriously  circulated,  and  letters  written  to  different  parts  of  the 
country,  charging  the  federalists  with  the  design  to  prevent  the  election 
of  a  president,  and  to  usurp  the  legislative  power.  I  was  privy  to  all  the 
arrangements  made,  atid  attended  all  the  meetings  of  the  federal  party 
when  consulting  on  the  course  to  be  pursued  in  relation  to  the  election, 
-and  I  pledge  my  most  solemn  asseveration  that  no  such  measure  was  for 
a  moment  contemplated  by  that  party ;  that  no  such  proposition  was 
€ver  made ;  and  that  if  it  had  ever  been,  it  would  not  only  have  been 
discouraged,  but  instantly  put  down,  by  those  gentlemen  who  possessed 
the  power,  and  were  pledged  to  each  other  to  elect  a  president  before  the 
close  of  the  session. 

"Although  nearly  thirty  years  have  elapsed  since  that  eventful  period, 
my  recollection  is  vivid,  as  to  the  principal  circumstances,  which,  from 
the  part  I  was  called  upon  to  act,  were  deeply  graven  on  my  memory. 
It  was  soon  ascertained  that  there  were  six  individuals,  the  vote  of  any 
one  of  whom,  could  at  any  moment  decide  the  election.  These  were 
your  father,  the  late  James  A.  Bayard,  who  held  the  vote  of  the  state  of 
Delaware,  General  Morris,  of  Vermont,  who  held  the  divided  vote  of 
that  state,  and  Mr.  Craik,  Mr.  Dennis,  Mr.  Thomas,  and  myself,  who 
held  the  divided  vote  of  Maryland.  Your  father,  Mr.  Craik,  and  my- 
self, having  compared  ideas  upon  the  subject,  and  finding  that  we  enter- 
tained the  same  views  and  opinions,  resolved  to  act  together,  and  accord- 
ingly entered  into  a  solemn  and  mutual  pledge,  that  we  would,  in  the 
first  instance,  yield  to  the  wishes  of  the  great  majority  of  the  party  with 
whom  we  acted,  and  vote  for  Mr.  Burr,  but  that  no  consideration  should 
induce  us  to  protract  the  contest  beyond  a  reasonable  period  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  whether  he  could  be  elected.  We  determined  that 
a  president  should  be  chosen,  but  were  willing  thus  far  to  defer  to  the 
opinions  of  our  political  friends,  whose  preference  of  Mr.  Burr  was 
founded  upon  a  belief  that  he  was  less  hostile  to  federal  men  and  federal 
measures,  than  Mr.  Jefferson.  General  Morris  and  Mr.  Dennis  ccncur^ 
red  in  this  arrangement.' 


196  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

MR.    Jefferson's    inauguration. — appointments. — naturalization. — 

/ 

PURCHASE  OF  LOUISIANA. BOUNDARY  TREATY  WITH  ENGLAND. 

The  inauguration  of  Mr.  Jefferson  took  place  on  the  4th  of  March, 
1801,  with  the  appropriate  ceremonies  usual  on  similar  occasions.  The 
inaugural  address,  in  its  language  and  sentiments,  was  regarded  as  un- 
exceptionable ;  and  in  respect  to  parties,  its  tone  was  pacific  and  con- 
ciliatory. The  following  paragraphs  constitute  the  greater  part  of  the 
address. 

"  During  the  contests  of  opinion  through  which  we  have  passed,  the 
animation  of  discussion  and  of  exertions  has  sometimes  worn  an  aspect 
which  might  impose  on  strangers  unused  to  think  freely,  and  to  speak, 
and  to  write  what  they  think ;  but  this  being  now  decided  by  the  voice 
of  the  nation,  announced  according  to  the  rules  of  the  constitution,  all 
will,  of  course,  arrange  themselves  under  the  will  of  the  law,  and  unite 
in  common  efforts  for  the  common  good.  All,  too,  will  bear  in  mind  this 
sacred  principle,  that  though  the  will  of  the  majority  is  in  all  cases  to 
prevail,  that  will,  to  be  rightful,  must  be  reasonable ;  that  the  minority 
possess  their  equal  rights,  which  equal  laws  must  protect,  and  to  violate 
which  would  be  oppression.  Let  us,  then,  fellow-citizens,  unite  with  one 
heart  and  one  mind.  Let  us  restore  to  social  intercourse  that  harmony 
and  affection  without  which  liberty  and  even  life  itself  are  but  dreary 
things.  And  let  us  reflect,  that,  having  banished  from  our  land  that  re- 
ligious intolerance  under  which  mankind  so  long  bled  and  suffered,  we 
have  yet  gained  little  if  we  countenance  a  political  intolerance  as  des- 
potic as  wicked,  and  capable  of  as  bitter  and  bloody  persecutions.  Dur- 
ing the  throes  and  convulsions  of  the  ancient  world,  during  the  agonizing 
spasms  of  infuriated  man,  seeking  through  blood  and  slaughter  his  long 
lost  liberty,  it  was  not  wonderful  that  the  agitation  of  the  billows  should 
reach  even  this  distant  and  peaceful  shore  ;  that  this  should  be  more  felt 
and  feared  by  some,  and  less  by  others ;  that  this  should  divide  opinions 
as  to  measures  of  safety.  But  every  difference  of  opinion  is  not  a  differ- 
ence of  principle.  We  have  called  by  different  names  brethren  of  the 
same  principle.  "We  are  all  republicans — we  are  all  federalists.  If 
there  be  any  among  us  who  would  wish  to  dissolve  this  union  or  to  change 
its  republican  form,  let  them  stand  undisturbed  as  monuments  of  the 
safety  with  which  error  of  opinion  may  be  tolerated  where  reason  is  left 


MR.  Jefferson's  inauguration.  197 

free  to  combat  it.  I  know,  indeed,  that  some  honest  men  fear  that  a  re- 
publican government  cannot  be  strong,  that  this  government  is  not  strong 
enough.  But  would  the  honest  patriot,  in  the  full  tide  of  successful  ex- 
periment, abandon  a  government  which  has  so  far  kept  us  free  and  firm, 
on  the  theoretic  and  visionary  fear  that  this  government,  the  world's  best 
hope,  may  by  possibility  want  energy  to  preserve  itself?  I  trust  not. 
I  believe  this,  on  the  contrary,  the  strongest  government  on  earth.  I 
believe  it  is  the  only  one,  where  every  man,  at  the  call  of  the  laws,  would 
fly  to  the  standard  of  the  law,  and  would  meet  invasions  of  the  public 
order  as  his  own  personal  concern.  Sometimes  it  is  said  that  man  can- 
not be  trusted  with  the  government  of  himself  Can  he,  then,  be  trusted 
with  the  government  of  others  ?  Or  have  we  found  angels  in  the  forms 
of  kings  to  govern  him  ?     Let  history  answer  this  question. 

"  Let  us,  then,  with  courage  and  confidence,  pursue  our  own  federal 
and  republican  principles,  our  attachment  to  our  union  and  representa- 
tive government.  Kindly  separated  by  nature  and  a  wide  ocean  from 
the  exterminating  havoc  of  one  quarter  of  the  globe ;  too  high-minded 
to  endure  the  degradations  of  the  other ;  possessing  a  chosen  country, 
with  room  enough  for  our  descendants  to  the  hundredth  and  thousandth 
generation  ;  entertaining  a  due  sense  of  our  equal  right  to  the  use  of  our 
own  faculties,  to  the  acquisitions  of  our  industry,  to  honor  and  confidence 
from  our  fellow-citizens,  resulting  not  from  birth,  but  from  our  actions 
and  their  sense  of  them ;  enlightened  by  a  benign  religion,  professed, 
indeed,  and  practised  in  various  forms,  yet  all  of  them  including  honesty, 
truth,  temperance,  gratitude,  and  the  love  of  man ;  acknowledging  and 
adoring  an  overruling  Providence,  which  by  all  its  dispensations  proves 
that  it  delights  in  the  happiness  of  man  here,  and  his  greater  happiness 
hereafter ;  with  all  these  blessings,  what  more  is  necessary  to  make  us  a 
happy  and  prosperous  people  ?  Still  one  thing  more,  fellow-citizens,  a 
wise  and  frugal  government,  which  shall  restrain  men  from  injuring  one 
another,  which  shall  leave  them  otherwise  free  to  regulate  their  own  pur- 
suits of  industry  and  improvement,  and  shall  not  take  from  the  mouth 
of  labor  the  bread  it  has  earned.  This  is  the  sum  of  good  government, 
and  this  is  necessary  to  close  the  circle  of  our  felicities. 

"  About  to  enter,  fellow-citizens,  on  the  exercise  of  duties  which  com- 
prehend every  thing  dear  and  valuable  to  you,  it  is  proper  that  you 
should  understand  what  I  deem  the  essential  principles  of  our  govern- 
ment, and  consequently  those  which  ought  to  shape  its  administration. 
I  will  compress  them  within  the  narrowest  compass  they  will  bear, 
stating  the  general  principle,  but  not  all  its  limitations.  Equal  and 
exact  justice  to  all  men,  of  whatever  state  or  persuasion,  religious  or 
political ;  peace,  commerce,  and  honest  friendship,  with  all  nations — 


ft>8  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

entangling  alliances  with  none  ;  the  support  of  the  state  gOTernn«3nts  m 
all  their  rights,  as  the  most  competent  administrations  for  our  domestic 
concerns  and  the  surest  bulwarks  against  anti-republican  tendencies  ;  th^ 
preservation  of  the  general  government  in  its  whole  constitutional  vigor, 
as  the  sheet  anchor  of  our  peace  at  home  and  safety  abroad ;  a  jeal- 
ous care  of  the  right  of  election  by  the  people — a  mild  and  safe  correc- 
tive of  abuses  which  are  lopped  by  the  sword  of  revolution  where  peace- 
able remedies  are  unprovided ;  absolute  acquiescence  in  the  decisions  of 
the  majority — the  vital  principle  of  republics,  from  which  there  is  no 
appeal  but  to  force,  the  vital  principle  and  immediate  parent  of  despo- 
tism ;  a  well-disciplined  militia — our  best  reliance  in  peace,  and  for  the 
first  moments  of  war,  till  regulars  may  relieve  them ;  the  supremacy 
of  the  civil  over  the  military  authority ;  economy  in  the  public  expense, 
that  labor  may  be  lightly  burdened ;  the  honest  payment  of  our  debts 
and  sacred  preservation  of  the  public  faith :  encouragement  of  agricul- 
ture and  of  commerce,  as  its  handmaid  ;  the  difi'usion  of  information  and 
the  arraignment  of  all  abuses  at  the  bar  of  public  reason ;  freedom  of 
religion ;  freedom  of  the  press ;  freedom  of  person  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  habeas  corpus ;  and  trial  by  juries  impartially  selected — 
these  principles  form  the  bright  constellation  which  has  gone  before  us, 
and  guided  our  steps  through  an  age  of  revolution  and  reformation.  The 
wisdom  of  our  sages,  and  the  blood  of  our  heroes,  have  been  devoted  to 
their  attainment.  They  should  be  the  creed  of  our  political  faith — the 
text  of  civil  instruction — the  touchstone  by  which  to  try  the  services  of 
those  we  trust ;  and  should  we  wander  from  them  in  moments  of  error 
or  alarm,  let  us  hasten  to  retrace  our  steps  and  to  regain  the  road  which 
alone  leads  to  peace,  liberty,  and  safety." 

Mr.  Jefferson  selected  for  his  cabinet  officers,  James  Madison,  secre- 
tary of  state  ;  Henry  Dearborn,  of  Massachusetts,  secretary  of  war,  and 
Levi  Lincoln,  of  Massachusetts,  attorney-general.  Samuel  Dexter,  of 
Massachusetts,  secretary  of  the  treasury,  and  Benjamin  Stoddart,  of 
Maryland,  secretary  of  the  navy,  both  of  whom  had  been  appointed  by 
Mr.  Adams,  were  continued  in  office ;  as  also  Joseph  Habersham,  of 
Georgia,  postmaster-general ;  until  January,  1802,  when  Albert  Gallatin, 
of  Pennsylvania,  was  appointed  secretary  of  the  treasury;  Robert  Smith, 
of  Maryland,  secretary  of  the  navy ;  and  Gideon  Granger,  of  Connecti- 
cut, postmaster-general.  Mr.  Habersham  had  held  this  office  since  his 
appointment  by  president  Washington,  February  25,  1795.  The  post- 
master-general was  first  made  a  cabinet  officer  by  president  Jackson. 

The  newspaper  which  was  selected  as  the  official  organ  of  the  new 
administration,  was  the  National  Intelligencer,  which  had  been  estab- 
lished in  the  new  city  a  few  months  before  the  election,  by  Benjamin 


APPOINTMENTS.  199 

Harrison  Smith  of  Philadelphia,  for  some  time  publisher  of  a  republi- 
can paper  in  that  citj.  The  Intelligencer  is  the  paper  now  published 
by  Gales  and  Seaton,  into  whose  hands  it  came  a  few  years  after  its  com- 
mencement. An  opposition  paper,  the  Washington  Federalist,  was 
established  at  or  near  the  same  time  as  the  Intelligencer. 

The  tenor  of  the  inaugural  address,  and  the  assurances  given  to  Mr. 
Bayard,  had  allayed  the  apprehensions  of  the  opposition  in  relation  to  a 
general  removal  of  public  officers  subject  to  executive  appointment.  A 
larger  number  of  removals,  however,  were  made  than  the  federalists 
deemed  consistent  with  the  professions  and  pledges  of  Mr.  Jefferson. 
A  case  which  obtained  a  notoriety  beyond  any  other,  was  that  of  the  dis- 
placement of  Elizur  Goodrich,  collector  of  the  port  of  New  Haven,  and 
the  appointment  of  Samuel  Bishop,  nearly  seventy- eight  years  of  age, 
whose  eye-sight  was  much  impaired,  and  whose  qualifications  for  the 
office  were  considered  far  inferior  to  those  of  his  predecessor.  The  mer- 
chants of  New  Haven  sent  a  remonstrance  to  the  president,  in  which 
they  declaied  the  superiority  of  Mr.  Goodrich's  qualifications,  and  re- 
minded the  president  of  the  sentiments  expressed  in  his  inaugural 
address.     In  his  reply  Mr.  Jefierson  thus  vindicated  his  course  : 

"  Declarations  by  myself,  in  favor  of  political  tolerance,  exhortations 
to  harmony  and  affection  in  social  intercourse,  and  respect  for  the  equal 
right  of  the  minority,  have,  on  certain  occasions,  been  quoted  and  mis- 
construed into  assurances  that  the  tenure  of  offices  was  not  to  be  dis- 
turbed. But  could  candor  apply  such  a  construction  ?  When  it  is 
considered  that,  during  the  late  administration,  those  who  were  not  of  a 
particular  sect  of  politics  were  excluded  from  all  office ;  when,  by  a 
steady  pursuit  of  this  measure,  nearly  the  whole  offices  of  the  United 
States  were  monopolized  by  that  sect ;  when  the  public  sentiment  at 
length  declared  itself,  and  burst  open  the  doors  of  honor  and  confidence 
to  those  whose  opinions  they  approved ;  was  it  to  be  imagined  that  this 
monopoly  of  office  was  to  be  continued  in  the  hands  of  the  minority  ? 
Does  it  violate  their  equal  rights  to  assert  some  rights  in  the,  majority 
also  ?  Is  it  political  intolerance  to  claim  a  proportionate  share  in  the 
direction  of  the  public  affairs  ?  If  a  due  participation  of  office  is  a 
matter  of  right ;  how  are  vacancies  to  be  obtained  ?  Those  by  death  are 
few,  by  resignation  none.  Can  any  other  mode  than  that  of  removal  be 
proposed  ?  This  is  a  painful  office ;  but  it  is  made  my  duty,  and  I  meet 
it  as  such.  I  proceed  in  the  operation  with  deliberation  and  inquiry, 
that  it  may  injure  the  best  men  least,  and  effect  the  purposes  of  justice 
and  public  utility  with  the  least  private  distress ;  that  it  may  be  thrown 
as  much  as  possible  on  delinquency,  on  oppression,  on  intolerance,  on 
anti-revolutionary  adherence  to  our  enemies. 


200  '     THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

"  I  lament  sincerely  that  unessential  diiOferences  of  opinion  should  ever 
have  been  deemed  sufficient  to  interdict  half  the  society  from  the  rights 
and  the  blessings  of  self-government,  to  proscribe  them  as  unworthy  of 
every  trust.  It  would  have  been  to  me  a  circumstance  of  great  relief, 
had  I  found  a  moderate  participation  of  office  in  the  hands  of  the  major- 
ity. I  would  gladly  have  left  to  time  and  accident  to  raise  them  to  their 
just  share.  But  their  total  exclusion  calls  for  prompter  corrections.  I 
shall  correct  the  procedure  ;  but  that  done,  return  with  joy  to  that  state 
of  things  when  the  only  questions  concerning  a  candidate  shall  be,  Is  he 
honest  ?  Is  he  capable  ?  Is  he  faithful  to  the  constitution  ?" 

To  the  general  sentiments  contained  in  this  vindication,  there  would 
seem  to  be  little  ground  of  objection,  even  on  the  part  of  the  federalists. 
The  most  that  was  or  might  be  said  with  any  force,  by  way  of  rejoinder, 
was,  that  Mr.  Adams  had  made  no  removals  of  consequence,  and  none 
from  party  considerations,  most  of  the  incumbents  having  been  appointed 
by  Gen.  Washington,  against  whose  administration  no  organized  opposi- 
tion was  formed,  and  before  the  republican  party  could  be  fairly  said  to 
have  had  existence.  Great,  however,  as  was  the  clamor  of  the  opposi- 
tion, the  number  of  removals  from  important  offices  during  his  whole 
administration,  has  been  given  as  less  than  forty,  which,  although  nearly 
equal  to  all  others  made  to  the  close  of  John  Quincy  Adams's  adminis- 
tration, bears  no  comparison  to  the  extent  to  which  proscription  for 
opinion's  sake  has  since  been  carried. 

Great  objection  was  made  to  appointments  which  Mr.  Adams  made 
during,  and  after  the  ballotings  in  the  house  for  president.  Filling 
ofi&ces  so  near  the  close  of  his  term  of  office,  Mr.  Jefferson  considered  as 
an  infringement  of  his  prerogative,  and  as  being  void.  The  commissions 
of  several  of  them  had  been  executed,  but  not  having  been  delivered,  Mr. 
Jefferson  suppressed  them,  and  made  new  appointments.  The  judges 
appointed  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  new  judiciary  act 
holding  their  offices  during  good  behavior,  and  not  being  removable,  the 
act,  as  has  already  been  stated,  was  repealed  at  the  next  session  of  con- 
gress, rather  from  the  motive,  as  the  federalists  suspected,  of  nullifying 
Mr.  Adams's  "  midnight  appointments,"  as  they  were  termed,  than  for 
the  alleged  reason  that  an  additional  number  of  judges  was  unnecessary. 

In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Giles,  of  Virginia,  Mr.  Jefferson  wrote,  March  23  : 
"  Some  principles  have  been  the  subject  of  conversation,  but  not  of 
determination;  e.  g.,  all  appointments  to  civil  offices  duri?ig  pleasure^ 
made  after  the  event  of  the  election  was  certainly  known  to  Mr.  Adams, 
are  considered  as  nullities.  I  do  not  view  the  persons  appointed  as  even 
candidates  for  the  office,  but  make  others  without  noticing  or  notifying 
them.     2.   Officers  who  have  been  guilty  of  official  misconduct  are  sub- 


APPOINTMENTS.  201 

jects  of  removal.  3.  Good  men  to  whom  there  is  no  objection  but  dif- 
ference of  political  principle,  practiced  on  only  as  far  as  the  right  of  a  pri- 
vate citizen  will  justify,  are  not  proper  subjects  of  removal,  except  in  the 
cases  of  attorneys  and  marshals.  The  courts  being  so  decidedly  federal 
and  irremovable,  it  is  believed  that  republican  attorneys  and  marshals, 
being  the  doors  of  entry  into  the  courts,  are  indispensably  necessary  as 
a  shield  to  the  republican  part  of  our  fellow-citizens,  which,  I  believe,  is 
the  main  body  of  the  people.  These  principles  are  yet  to  be  considered 
of,  and  I  sketch  them  to  you  in  confidence." 

To  Mr.  G-erry  he  wrote,  March  28  :  "  Mr.  Adams's  last  appointments, 
when  he  knew  he  was  naming  aids  and  counsellors  for  me,  and  not  for 
himself,  I  set  aside,  as  far  as  depends  on  me.  Officers  who  have  been 
guilty  of  gross  abuses  of  office,  such  as  marshals  packing  juries,  &c  ,  I 
shall  now  remove,  as  my  predecessors  ought  in  justice  to  have  done. 
The  instances  will  be  few,  and  governed  by  strict  rule,  not  party  passion, 
The  right  of  opinion  shall  suffer  no  invasion  from  me.  Those  who  have 
acted  well  have  nothing  to  fear,  however  they  may  have  differed  from  me 
in  opinion." 

In  a  letter  to  Gideon  Granger,  May  3,  he  wrote  :  "  The  clergy  who 
have  missed  their  union  with  the  state,  the  Anglemen,  who  have  missed 
their  union  with  England,  and  the  political  adventurers,  who  have  lost 
the  chance  of  sv/indling  and  plunder  in  the  waste  of  public  money,  will 
never  cease  to  bawl,  on  the  breaking  up  of  their  sanctuary.  But  among 
the  people  the  schism  is  healed,  and  with  tender  treatment  the  wound 
will  not  reopen.  The  quondam  leaders  have  been  astounded  with  the 
suddenness  of  the  desertion ;  and  their  silence  and  appearance  of 
acquiescence  have  proceeded,  not  from  a  thought  of  joining  us,  but  the 
uncertainty  what  ground  to  take.  The  very  first  acts  of  the  administra- 
tion, the  nominations,  have  accordingly  furnished  something  to  yelp  on  ; 
and  all  our  subsequent  acts  will  furnisli  them  fresh  matter,  because  there 
is  nothing  against  which  human  ingenuity  will  not  be  able  to  find  some- 
thing to  say." 

To  Levi  Lincoln,  July  11,  1801  :  "  The  consolidation  of  our  fellow- 
citizens  in  general,  is  the  great  object  we  ought  to  keep  in  view ;  and 
that  being  once  obtained,  while  we  associate  with  us  in  affairs,  to  a 
certain  degree,  the  federal  sect  of  republicans,  we  must  strip  of  all  the 
means  of  influence  the  Essex  junto,  and  their  associate  monocrats  in 
every  part  of  the  Union.  The  former  differ  from  us  only  in  the  shades 
of  power  to  be  given  to  the  executive,  being,  with  us,  attached  to  repub- 
lican government.  The  latter  wish  to  sap  the  republic  by  fraud,  if 
they  cannot  destroy  it  by  force,  and  to  erect  an  English  monarchy  in  its 
place.     We  are  proceeding  gradually  in  the  regeneration  of  offices,  and 


202  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

introducing  republicans  to  some  share  in  them.  I  do  not  know  that  it 
will  be  pushed  further  than  was  settled  before  you  went  away,  except  as 
to  Essex  men.  I  must  ask  you  to  make  out  a  list  of  those  in  office  in 
yours  and  the  neighboring  states,  and  to  furnish  me  with  it."  [Ap- 
pendix, Note  C] 

The  7th  congress  assembled  at  Washington,  December  7,  1801. 
Nathaniel  Macon,  of  North  Carolina,  a  republican,  was  elected  speaker 
of  the  house  of  representatives.  In  the  senate,  Abraham  Baldwin,  of 
Georgia,  for  many  years  a  member  of  the  house,  was  elected  president 
'pro  tern  ;  the  majorities  in  both  houses  being  republican. 

Instead  of  making  his  first  communication  to  congress  by  personal  ad- 
dress, as  had  been  the  practice,  he  adopted  that  by  message,  as  used  on 
subsequent  occasions  through  the  session.  The  reasons  for  this  course, 
assigned  in  a  letter  to  both  houses,  were,  "  the  convenience  of  the  legis- 
lature, the  economy  of  their  time,  and  their  relief  from  the  embarrass- 
ment of  immediate  answers  on  subjects  not  yet  fully  before  them." 

The  president  announced  to  congress  "  on  the  grounds  of  reasonable 
certainty,  that  the  wars  and  troubles  which  had  for  so  many  years  afflict- 
ed our  sister  nations,  had  at  length  come  to  an  end,  and  that  the  commu- 
nications of  peace  and  commerce  were  once  more  opening  among  them." 
Peace  and  friendship  generally  prevailed  among  the  Indian  tribes.  He 
stated  briefly  the  difficulty  with  the  bey  of  Tripoli.  Dissatisfied  with 
the  sum  paid  him  in  purchase  of  the  late  treaty,  he  had  demanded  more 
without  any  shadow  of  right,  and  threatened  war  in  case  of  a  refusal. 
The  president  had  sent  out  a  small  squadron  of  frigates  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean to  protect  our  commerce ;  and  the  danger  had  been  dispelled. 
One  of  the  Tripolitan  cruisers  had  been  captured  by  an  American 
schooner. 

A  prominent  object  of  recommendation  was  a  reduction  of  the  public 
expenditures.  Offices  and  officers  he  thought  had  been  unnecessarily 
multiplied  ;  and  he  had  already  begun  to  reduce  those  dependent  on  ex- 
ecutive discretion.  The  expenses  of  diplomatic  agency  had  also  been 
diminished.  But  the  great  mass  of  offices  were  created  by  law,  and  the 
law-making  power  alone  could  abolish  them.  The  military  establishment 
was  too  large  for  a  state  of  peace.  Other  topics  were  noticed,  among 
which  was  an  alteration  of  the  naturalization  law. 

An  act  was  passed,  at  this  session  for  the  apportionment  of  representa- 
tives according  to  the  second  census.  The  ratio  of  33,000  was  readopted. 
Also  an  act  for  the  protection  of  our  commerce  and  seamen  against  the 
Tripolitan  cruisers ;  an  act  fixing  the  military  peace  establishment,  by 
which  the  army  was  much  reduced,  and  a  military  academy  established 
at  West  Point ;  an  act  regulating  intercourse  with  the  Indian  tribes. 


PURCHASE    OF    LOUISIANA.  203 

and  to  preserve  peace  on  the  frontiers  ;  an  act  for  the  repeal  of  internal 
duties  on  stills  and  domestic  distilled  spirits,  refined  sugars,  licenses  to 
retailers,  sales  at  auction,  carriages,  stamped  paper,  &c.;  an  act  appro- 
priating annually  $7,300,000  to  the  sinking  fund  for  the  payment  of  the 
public  debt.  The  state  of  the  treasury,  however,  did  not  admit  of  the 
appropriation  ;  consequently  the  act  was  inoperative. 

An  act  was  also  passed  concerning  naturalization.  By  the  first  act 
passed  on  this  subject,  in  1790,  an  alien  might  be  admitted  as  a  citizen, 
at  any  time  after  a  two  years'  residence,  on  application  to  the  proper 
court  of  any  state  in  which  he  had  resided  for  one  year.  By  the  act  of 
1795,  a  residence  of  five  years  was  required,  and  the  application  was  to 
be  made  three  years  before  admission.  In  1798,  the  year  of  the  passage 
of  the  alien  and  sedition  laws,  a  naturalization  act  was  passed,  requiring 
a  residence  of  fourteen  years,  the  application  to  be  made  five  years  before 
admission.  The  act  passed  this  year,  (1802)  restored  the  term  of  resi- 
dence to  five  years,  and  that  of  the  previous  application  to  three  years. 

An  act  to  enable  the  people  of  the  eastern  division  of  the  north-west- 
ern territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  state  government,  and  for  the 
admission  of  such  state  (Ohio)  into  the  union,  was  passed. 

Near  the  close  of  Mr.  Adams'  administration,  an  adjustment  was 
made  with  Great  Britain  of  the  claims  of  her  citizens  upon  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  for  debts  contracted  prior  to  the  revolution,  and 
which  had  been  assumed  by  our  government  in  Jay's  treaty.  The 
amount  agreed  upon,  was  $2,644,000  ;  to  be  paid  in  three  annual  instal- 
ments. An  act  was  passed  at  this  session  making  the  necessary  appro- 
priations for  the  payment  of  these  British  debts. 

The  great  measure  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  administration  was  the  purchase 
of  Louisiana.  The  reacquisition  of  this  territory  from  Spain  was  an 
object  much  desired  by  Napoleon.  It  being  rumored  in  England  and 
France,  that,  by  a  secret  treaty,  Spain  had  ceded  Louisiana  and  the 
Floridas  to  France,  Mr.  King,  our  minister  at  London,  in  a  letter 
dated  March  29,  1801,  informed  our  government  of  the  rumor,  and  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  such  treaty  had  been  actually  executed,  and  his 
apprehension  "  that  this  cession  was  intended  to  have,  and  might  actually 
produce,  effects  injurious  to  the  union  and  consequent  happiness  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States."  This  apprehension  was  founded  upon  the 
known  opinion  of  certain  influential  persons  in  France,  "  that  nature  had 
marked  a  line  of  separation  between  the  people  of  the  United  States  liv- 
ing upon  the  two  sides  of  the  range  of  mountains  which  divides  their  ter- 
ritory." This  acquisition  of  Louisiana  would  give  to  France  the  com- 
mand of  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  and  consequently  the  control  of 
the  trade  of  the  western  states  ;  and  it  was  suspected  as  being  possibly  a 
part  of  her  design  to  effect  a  union  ultimately  with  these  states. 


204  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  say,  that  the  United  States  were  anxious  to  pre- 
vent this  apprehended  transfer  of  the  territory  in  question ;  and  our 
ministers  in  France  and  Spain,  Robert  R.  Livingston  and  Charles 
Pinckney,  were  instructed,  if  the  cession  had  not  been  made,  to  use  their 
endeavors  to  defeat  the  project ;  and  Mr.  Pinckney  was  particularly  re- 
quested (May  11,  1802,)  if  Spain  should  retain  New  Orleans  and  the 
Floridas,  to  endeavor  "  to  obtain  the  arrangement  by  which  the  terri- 
tory on  the  east  side  of  the  Mississippi,  including  New  Orleans,  might 
be  ceded  to  the  United  States,  and  the  Mississippi  made  a  common 
boundary,  with  a  common  use  of  its  navigation  for  them  and  Spain." 
Rut  notwithstanding  the  denial  of  the  fact  on  the  part  of  the  French 
government  to  Mr.  Livingston,  and  persisted  in  for  a  year,  the  cession 
had  been  made  as  early  as  October,  1800. 

Ry  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Spain,  of  October  27, 
1795,  our  western  boundary  was  fixed  in  the  middle  of  the  Mississippi 
down  to  the  31st  degree  of  north  latitude;  and  the  navigation  of  the 
whole  breadth  of  the  river  from  its  source  to  the  ocean,  was  to  be  free 
to  the  subjects  and  citizens  of  both  countries ;  and  in  consequence  of 
these  stipulations,  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  were  to  be  permitted 
for  three  years,  to  use  the  port  of  New  Orleans  as  a  place  of  deposit  and 
exportation  for  their  merchandise  ;  which  privilege  was  to  be  thereafter 
continued,  if  not  prejudicial  to  Spain  ;  and  if  not  continued  there,  "  an 
equivalent  establishment "  was  to  be  assigned  for  this  purpose  at  some 
other  place  on  the  bank  of  the  Mississippi.  Rut,  notwithstanding  these 
plain  stipulations,  the  use  of  the  port  of  New  Orleans  was  suddenly 
interrupted  by  the  intendant  of  the  province  of  Louisiana  at  New  Or- 
leans, on  the  pretext  that,  "  with  the  publication  of  the  ratification  of 
the  treaty  of  Amiens,  and  the  reestablishment  of  the  communication  be- 
tween the  English  and  Spanish  subjects,  the  inconvenience  [of  the  privi- 
lege granted  by  the  treaty]  had  ceased;"  adding,  that  the  "toleration 
could  be  no  longer  consented  to  without  an  express  order  from  the  king." 

Information  of  this  interruption  of  trade  was  communicated  to  con- 
gress by  the  president  the  30th  of  December,  1802.  On  the  7th  of 
January,  1803,  the  house  of  representatives  adopted  a  resolution,  in 
which  they  declared,  that,  while  "  willing  to  ascribe  this  breach  of  com- 
pact to  the  unauthorized  misconduct  of  certain  individuals,"  they  held 
it  to  be  their  duty  "  to  express  their  unalterable  determination  to  main- 
tain the  boundaries  and  the  rights  of  navigation  and  commerce  through 
the  river  Mississippi,  as  established  by  existing  treaties."  This  aflair 
was  made  the  subject  of  communication  to  both  Mr.  Pinckney  and  to 
Mr.  Livingston. 

The  empty  declaration,  by  congress,  of  a  determination  to  maintain 


PURCHASE    OF   LOUISIANA.  205 

the  rights  of  our  citizens,  was  not  satisfactory  to  the  western  people,  who 
expected  some  prompt,  direct,  and  effective  measure  of  redress.  In  re- 
sponse to  their  continued  complaints,  resolutions  were  introduced  into 
the  senate  by  Mr.  Koss,  an  opposition  senator  from  Pennsylvania,  au- 
thorizing the  president  to  take  possession  of  New  Orleans,  and  providing 
a  force  of  50,000  men  ;  and  an  appropriation  of  $5,000,000.  This  pro- 
position failed;  but  a  law  was  passed,  authorizing  the  president,  when-' 
ever  he  should  judge  it  expedient,  to  require  the  executives  of  such  states 
as  he  should  think  proper,  to  hold  in  readiness  a  detachment  of  militia 
not  exceeding  80,000.  An  appropriation  of  $1,500,000  was  made  for 
subsisting  the  troops,  purchasing  military  stores,  and  defraying  other 
necessary  expenses  :  and  $25,000  was  appropriated  for  erecting  arsenals 
on  the  western  waters,  and  for  furnishing  them  with  arms  and  ammuni- 
tion. Prior,  however,  to  the  passage  of  this  act,  a  letter  was  received 
from  Gov.  Claiborne,  of  the  Mississippi  territory,  inclosing  one  from  the 
governor  of  Louisiana,  saying  that  the  suspension  of  deposits  by  the  in- 
tendant  was  without  orders  from  the  Spanish  government,  and  that  the 
measure  did  not  accord  with  his  judgment.  The  matter  would  be  com- 
municated to  the  governor  of  Havana,  who  had  some  kind  of  superinten- 
dence over  the  authorities  at  New  Orleans. 

Mr.  Livingston,  writing  to  the  secretary  of  state,  April  24,  1802,  said 
he  had  not  yet  received  answers  to  his  inquiries  in  relation  to  the 
rumored  cession, — what  its  boundaries  were,  what  were  the  intentions  of 
France  respecting  it,  and  when  they  were  to  take  possession ;  and  it  was 
still  uncertain  whether  the  Floridas  were  included  in  the  cession.  He 
was,  however,  himself  confident  that  such  was  the  fact,  and  that  the  gov- 
ernment was  fitting  out  an  armament  to  take  possession  ;  the  number  of 
troops  to  be  from  five  to  seven  thousand,  and  to  sail  for  New  Orleans, 
unless  the  state  of  affairs  in  St.  Domingo  should  change  their  destina- 
tion. The  anticipation  of  the  occupation,  by  France,  of  the  acquired 
territory,  caused  the  deepest  solicitude  on  the  part  of  our  government, 
and  a  determination  to  effect,  if  possible,  a  reversal  of  the  cession.  Mr. 
Livingston  endeavored  to  convince  the  French  government  that  it  would 
not  be  advantageous  to  France  to  take  possession  of  Louisiana.  The 
cession  of  the  territory  to  her,  however,  might  be  turned  to  her  advan- 
tage, if  she  would  avail  herself  of  it  in  the  only  way  which  sound  policy 
dictated.  (He  spoke  of  Louisiana  proper,  without  including  the  Flori- 
das. )  The  way  in  which  to  secure  this  advantage  was  :  having  acquired 
the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  and  a  free  trade,  she  could  secure 
a  vent  for  a  vast  variety  of  her  commodities  in  the  western  states,  by 
proper  arrangements  with  the  United  States.  It  would  be  necessary  to 
afford  them  cheaper  than  those  they  received  from  Great  Britain.     This 


206  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ste  could  do  by  interesting  the  American  merchant  in  their  sale,  and  by 
engaging  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  give  them  a  preference. 
These  objects  might  be  attained  by  ceding  New  Orleans  to  the  United 
States,  reserving  to  herself  the  right  of  entry  without  the  payment  of 
higher  duties  than  were  exacted  from  vessels  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi.  This  would  enable  France  to 
carry  her  fabrics  into  all  the  western  territory.  She  would  command 
the  respect  without  exciting  the  fear  of  the  two  nations  whose  friendship 
was  most  important  to  her  commerce,  and  to  the  preservation  of  her 
islands :  and  all  this  without  the  expense  of  maintaining  colonial  estab- 
lishments. But  should  France  retain  New  Orleans,  and  endeavor  to 
colonize  Louisiana,  she  would  render  herself  an  object  of  jealousy  to 
Spain,  the  United  States,  and  Great  Britain,  who  would  discourage  her 
commerce,  and  compel  her  to  make  expensive  establishments  for  the 
security  of  her  rights. 

The  object  of  our  government  seems  to  have  been  to  purchase  New 
Orleans  and  the  Floridas ;  for,  although  the  latter  was  not  included  in 
the  cession,  it  was  suggested  by  Mr.  Livingston,  that  France  could  ac- 
quire it  by  an  exchange  with  Spain,  returning  her  Louisiana,  retaining 
New  Orleans,  and  then  give  the  latter  and  Florida  for  our  debt.  In  a 
letter  to  Mr.  Madison  of  December  20,  1802,  Mr.  Livingston,  although 
not  sanguine  of  success,  had  such  encouragement  as  to  think  it  advisable 
to  ask  for  instructions  "  how  to  act  in  case  favorable  circumstances  should 
arise."     The  armament  for  Louisiana,  he  said,  had  not  yet  sailed. 

Before  this  letter  was  received,  the  president,  contemplating  the  ces- 
sion of  Louisiana  to  France,  in  connection  with  the  affair  at  New  Or- 
leans, determined  to  take  measures  most  likely,  not  only  to  reestablish 
our  present  rights,  but  to  effect  their  enlargement  and  security.  The 
importance  of  the  crisis,  he  thought,  demanded  the  experiment  of  an  ex- 
traordinary mission  ;  and  he  appointed  Mr.  Monroe,  as  an  associate  of 
Mr.  Livingston,  and  also  of  Mr.  Pinckney,  if  it  should  be  necessary,  in 
treating  with  the  Spanish  government.  The  instructions  were  to  pro- 
cure, if  possible,  a  cession  of  New  Orleans  and  the  Floridas.  Informa- 
tion of  this  appointment  was  communicated  by  Madison  to  Mr.  Living- 
ston under  date  of  the  18th  of  January,  1803. 

On  the  24th,  Mr.  Livingston  wrote,  informing  our  government  of  the 
appointment  of  General  Bernadotte,  brother-in-law  of  Joseph  Bonaparte, 
as  minister  to  the  United  States.  This  letter  spoke  discouragingly  ;  and 
an  accompanying  dispatch  appeared  to  assume  that  Florida  also  was 
ceded  to  France.  But  on  the  3rd  of  March,  he  wrote  that  it  was  still  in 
the  hands  of  Spain. 

A  direct  negotiation  had  been  commenced  before  the  arrival  of  Mr. 


PURCHASE    OF    LOUISIANA.  207 

Monroe,  and  was  successfully  terminated  about  a  month  afterward,  with 
Marbois,  minister  of  the  treasury,  whom  the  first  consul  preferred  to 
Talleyrand,  for  this  business.  From  the  voluminous  correspondence  on 
this  subject,  it  may  be  inferred,  that,  among  the  considerations  which 
facilitated  the  negotiation,  were  these  :  First,  Apprehensions  that  Great 
Britain  would  take  possession  of  that  territory,  and  transfer,  it  to  the 
United  States  ;  it  being  generally  known  that  that  government  was  averse 
to  its  occupation  by  France.  A  confirmation  of  this  fact  had  recently 
been  given  by  the  London  papers,  in  which  was  a  proposition  for  raising 
fifty  thousa.nd  men  to  take  New  Orleans.  Second,  The  apprehension 
that  the  United  States  themselves  would  take  possession ;  information 
having  been  received  of  the  passage  of  the  resolution  by  congress  to 
maintain  the  rights  guaranteed  by  the  treaty  with  Spain,  and  of  the  in- 
troduction of  the  more  recent  resolutions  of  Mr.  Ross  in  the  senate,  pro- 
prosing  to  raise  a  force  to  take  New  Orleans.  Third,  A  pressing  want 
of  money  on  the  part  of  Napoleon. 

The  first  definite  proposition  appears  to  have  come  from  the  first  con- 
sul, through  Marbois,  which  was,  that  the  United  States  should  give  one 
hundred  millions  of  francs,  pay  their  own  claim3,  and  take  the  whole 
country.  To  which  Mr.  Livingston  replied,  "  that  the  United  States 
were  anxious  to  preserve  peace  with  France ;  that,  for  that  reason,  they 
wished  to  remove  them  to  the  west  side  of  the  Mississippi ;  that  we 
would  be  perfectly  satisfied  with  New  Orleans  and  the  Floridas,  and  had 
no  disposition  to  extend  across  the  river  ;  that,  of  course,  we  would  not 
give  any  great  sum  for  the  purchase.  Mr.  L.,  being  pressed  to  name  a 
sum  they  would  give,  told  Marbois,  that  they  had  no  authority  to  go  to 
a  sum  that  bore  any  proportion  to  what  he  had  mentioned ;  but  that  as 
he  had  himself  considered  the  demand  too  high,  he  would  oblige  them  by 
telling  what  he  thought  would  be  reasonable.  He  replied,  that  if  they 
would  name  sixty  millions,  and  pay  the  American  claims,  about  twenty 
millions  more,  he  would  communicate  the  ofi"er  to  the  first  consul.  Mr. 
L.  told  him  "  that  it  was  vain  to  ask  any  thing  that  was  so  greatly  be- 
yond our  means ;  that  true  policy  would  dictate  to  the  first  consul  not 
to  press  such  a  demand  ;  that  he  must  know  that  it  must  render  the  pre- 
sent government  (of  the  United  States)  unpopular,  and  have  a  tendency, 
at  the  next  election,  to  throw  the  power  into  the  hands  of  men  who  were 
most  hostile  to  a  connection  with  France  ;  and  that  this  would  probably 
happen  in  the  midst  of  a  war."  Marbois  feared  the  consul  would  not 
relax.  Mr.  L.  asked  him  to  press  upon  the  consul  the  argument  that 
the  country  was  not  worth  the  price  asked,  together  with  the  danger  of 
seeing  the  country  pass  into  the  hands  of  Great  Britain.  He  told  him 
that  he  had  seen  the  ardor  of  the  Americans  to  take  it  by  force,  and  the 


208  IIIE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

difficulty  with  which  they  were  restrained  by  the  prudence  of  the  presi- 
dent ;  that  he  must  easily  see  how  much  the  hands  of  the  war  party 
would  be  strengthened,  when  they  learned  that  France  was  on  the  eve 
of  a  rupture  with  England.  In  the  same  interview,  Marbois  was  asked 
whether,  in  case  of  a  purchase,  France  would  stipulate  never  to  possess 
the  Floridas,  and  that  she  would  aid  us  to  procure  them;  to  which  he 
replied  in  the  affirmative. 

Although  the  ministers  had  no  instructions  to  pi^rchase  Louisiana,  the 
thing  not  having  been  contemplated — perhaps  never  before  thought  of; 
but  the  offer  to  sell  having  been  made  by  Bonaparte,  and  the  great  value 
of  the  acquisition  to  the  United  States  being  considered,  our  ministers 
were  induced  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  transcending  their  author- 
ity. The  conference  sketched  above,  took  place  on  the  13th  of  April, 
and  on  the  30th,  the  treaty  was  signed  by  the  parties  to  the  negotiation. 

Among  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  was  one  conceding  to  the  vessels 
of  France  and  Spain  coming  directly  from  any  part  of  their  respective 
dominions,  loaded  only  with  the  products  of  the  same,  the  right,  for 
twelve  years,  to  enter  the  ports  of  the  ceded  territory  on  the  same  terms 
as  vessels  of  the  United  States  coming  directly  from  the  same  countries. 
During  this  time,  no  other  nation  ivas  to  enjoy  the  same  privileges ;  and 
thereafter,  France  was  to  enjoy  the  footing  of  the  most  favored  nations. 
The  sum  to  be  paid  was  60,000,000  francs,  and  the  French  debt  which 
was  not  to  exceed  20,000,000  ;  the  precise  amount  not  having  been  ascer- 
tained. An  investigation  of  the  claims  was  provided  for  in  the  treaty. 
The  French  debt  having  been  subsequently  determined  to  be  $3,750,000, 
the  whole  purchase  amounted  to  $15,000,000.  The  treaty  consisted  of 
three  separate  parts  ;  the  first  being  properly  the  treaty  of  cession.  This 
was  followed  by  two  conventions,  the  first  of  which  contained  the  stipu- 
lation for  the  payment  of  the  60,000,000  francs  in  six  per  cent,  stock, 
interest  to  be  paid  half  yearly ;  the  principal  to  be  paid  in  annual  in- 
stalments of  not  less  than  three  millions  of  dollars,  to  commence  fifteen 
years,  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications.  The  other  convention  stipulated 
the  payment  of  the  claims  of  American  citizens  against  France,  and 
established  the  mode  of  determining  them. 

Thus  was  obtained,  in  consequence  of  an  unexpected  offer  of  Bona- 
parte, and  contrary  to  the  instructions  of  our  government  and  to  the 
constitution,  an  acquisition  to  the  United  States  of  incalculable  value. 
Mr.  Jefferson  admitted  this  purchase  and  "  annexation"  to  be  unauthor- 
ized, and  proposed  an  ex  post  facto  amendment  of  the  constitution,  to 
give  sanction  to  the  measure,  but  which  was  never  attempted. 

Mr.  Monroe,  soon  after  his  departure  from  the  United  States,  was 
appointed  (April  18,  1803,)  minister  to  Great  Britain,  whither  he  pro- 


PURCHASE    OF    LOUISIANA.  209 

ceeded  after  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  at  Paris,  to  take  the  place  of 
Mr.  King,  who  wished  to  return,  having  represented  the  United  States 
at  London  seven  years. 

As  the  exchange  of  ratifications  was  to  be  made  within  six  months  from 
the  date  of  the  treaty,  it  became  necessary  for  the  president  to  convene 
coYigress  before  the  regular  day  of  its  meeting,  in  order  to  submit  the 
treaty  to  the  senate  for  approval.  Congress  was  accordingly  assembled 
on  the  1 7th  of  October ;  and  on  the  20th  it  was  ratified  by  that  body, 
ten  days  before  the  expiration  of  the  six  months.  On  the  31st,  an  act 
was  passed  for  taking  possession  of  the  territory,  and  for  its  temporary 
government ;  on  the  1 0th  of  November,  an  act  was  passed  for  creating 
a  stock  to  the  amount  of  $1 1,250,000,  to  be  paid  to  France ;  and  an  act 
providing  for  the  payment  of  the  claims  of  our  citizens. 

By  the  treaty  of  1800,  between  France  and  Spain,  it  was  agreed  that, 
in  case  of  the  cession  of  the  Louisiana  territory  by  France,  Spain  was 
to  be  preferred.  The  necessary  haste  in  concluding  the  treaty  did  not 
admit  of  a  previous  consultation  with  the  Spanish  government.  Dis> 
pleased  with  this  violation  of  a  treaty  engagement  on  the  part  of  France, 
that  government  withheld  its  assent  to  the  late  cession  to  the  United 
States,  for  nearly  a  year. 

Before  the  close  of  the  session,  an  act  was  passed  dividing  Louisiana 
into  two  territories.  All  that  portion,  lying  south  of  the  Mississippi 
territory,  and  of  an  east  and  west  line  from  the  river,  at  the  33d  de- 
gree of  north  latitude,  to  the  western  boundary  of  the  territory,  was  to 
constitute  the  territory  of  Orleans  ;  and  the  residue  was  to  be  called  the 
district  of  Louisiana.  There  being  within  this  district  but  few  inhabi- 
tants, and  these  chiefly  residing  along  the  river  in  villages  of  which  the 
principal  was  St.  Louis,  the  districts,  for  the  purpose  of  government,  was 
placed  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Indiana,  then  comprising  all  the  original 
north-western  territory,  except  the  state  of  Ohio  which  had  been  recently 
formed,  (1802.) 

In  that  part  of  the  act  relating  to  the  government  of  the  territory  of 
Orleans,  was  a  provision  prohibiting  the  bringing  of  slaves  into  it  from 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  or  from  any  of  the  states  such  as 
had  been  imported  since  the  1st  of  May,  1798,  under  a  penalty  of  three 
hundred  dollars  ;  and  the  slaves  were  to  be  free.  The  introduction  of 
this  provision  into  the  law  is  said  to  have  been  the  result  of  a  memorial 
of  an  abolition  convention,  praying  congress  to  prohibit  the  farther  im- 
portation of  slaves  into  the  purchased  territory.  At  the  same  session, 
a  committee  of  the  house,  acting  upon  an  unfavorable  report  made  at  the 
preceding  session  on  a  memorial  from  a  convention  of  the  people  of 
Indiana  asking  for  a  suspension  of  the  anti-slavery  article  of  the  ordinance 

14 


210  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  1787,  reported  in  favor  of  such  suspension  for  ten  years  !  Slaves  born 
within  the  United  States  only  were  to  be  admitted  ;  and  their  descendants 
were  to  be  free,  males  at  twenty-five,  and  females  at  twenty-one  years  of 
age.  No  action  was  taken  on  the  report.  A  similar  application  to  con- 
gress from  the  same  territory  three  years  afterward,  also  failed,  after 
having  again  received  a  favorable  report. 

An  act  was  also  passed,  further  to  protect  our  commerce  against  the 
Barbary  powers ;  the  expense  of  equipping  and  manning  the  necessary 
vessels,  to  be  provided  for  by  increasing  the  duties  on  imports  two  and 
a  half  per  cent.,  and  if  imported  in  foreign  vessels,  ten  per  cent. ;  the 
money  thus  raised  to  be  called  the  "  Mediterranean  fund." 

At  this  session,  by  the  constitutional  majority  of  two-thirds,  the 
change  in  the  election  of  president  and  vice-president  was  proposed  to 
the  several  states ;  which,  having  been  ratified  by  the  requisite  number 
of  states,  became  a  part  [the  12th  article  of  amendment]  of  the  constitu- 
tion. Of  the  sixteen  states,  all  but  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and 
Delaware,  were  in  favor  of  the  amendment ;  the  ratification  by  three- 
'fourths  being  necessary. 

Apprehensions  were  entertained  of  serious  difficulties  with  Spain.  A 
convention  had  been  concluded  with  that  government  in  August,  1802, 
for  the  adjustment  of  claims  for  spoliations  upon  our  commerce,  and  for 
depredations  of  French  cruisers  which  had  been  harbored  in  the  ports 
of  Spain,  where  the  prizes  had  been  condemned.  By  the  terms  of  the 
treaty,  the  claims  were  to  be  adjusted  by  a  joint  board  of  commissioners 
appointed  by  both  governments.  But  the  ratification  had  been  refused 
by  Spain,  her  displeasure  having  been  excited  by  our  acquisition  of 
Louisiana,  and  the  establishment  of  a  port  of  entry  within  what  she 
claimed  to  be  the  boundaries  of  ber  Florida  possessions.  On  being 
assured  that  there  was  no  intention  to  take  forcible  possession  of  the 
territory,  but  that  our  claims  in  that  quarter  would  be  reserved  for 
future  discussion,  he^  assent  to  the  cession  of  Louisiana  was  given.  The 
treaty  for  the  settlement  of  claims,  however,  the  king  of  Spain  refused  to 
ratify  until  the  9th  of  July,  1818,  nearly  sixteen  years  after  it  was  con- 
cluded and  signed  at  Madrid  by  Mr.  Charles  Pinckney  and  Pedro 
Cevallos.  It  was  proclaimed  by  president  Monroe,  December  22,  181 8. 
•  The  question  as  to  the  true  boundaries  of  Louisiana  was  long  in  dis- 
pute. As  held  by  France  prior  to  1763,  the  territory  extended  west  to 
the  Rio  Bravo,  or  Rio  del  Norte,  (now  commonly  called  Rio  Grande,) 
and  east  of  the  Mississippi  to  the  river  Perdido,  which  separated  it  from 
the  Spanish  province  of  Florida.  The  eastern  part  was  transferred  to 
Great  Britain,  and  with  some  additional  territory  ceded  by  Spain,  called 
West  Florida.     Therefore  as  Spain  received  it  from  France,  it  was 


BOUNDARY  TREATY  WITH  ENGLAND.  211 

bounded  on  the  east  by  the  Mississippi  river  and  lakes  Pontcharterain 
and  Borgne.  In  1783,  the  Floridas  were  restored  to  Spain.  Now,  did 
Spain,  by  this  restoration,  acquire  the  western  portion  of  Florida  to  the 
Mississippi,  which  she  did  not  originally  receive  from  France ;  but  which 
belonged  to  France  before  the  cession  of  1763?  In  other  words,  did 
the  United  States  receive  the  original  Louisiana  as  owned  by  France ; 
or  Louisiana  as  received  from  France  by  Spain  ?  The  territory  con- 
veyed was  described  in  the  treaty,  as  "  the  colony  or  province  of  Louis- 
iana, with  the  same  extent  as  it  now  has  in  the  hands  of  Spain,  and  that 
it  had  when  France  possessed  it,  and  such  as  it  should  be  after  the 
treaties  subsequently  entered  into  between  Spain  and  other  states." 
This  language  would  of  course  admit  d liferent  constructions.  Mr.  Liv- 
ingston considered  the  cession  as  including  all  originally  owned  by 
France,  except  what  Spain  might  have  ceded  to  other  nations  by  subse- 
quent treaties. 

A  formal  delivery  of  the  territory  was  made  on  the  20th  of  December, 
1803,  in  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  by  the  French  commissioner,  Laussaut, 
to  Gov.  Claibourne,  of  the  Mississippi  territory,  and  Gen.  James  Wilkin- 
son, who  received  the  ceded  territory  on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 
Nothing  official  passed  on  that  occasion  concerning  the  boundaries ;  but 
Laussaut  confidentially  signified,  that  tlije  territory  did  not  include  any 
part  of  West  Florida,  but  that  it  extended  westwardly  to  the  del  Norte. 
Orders  were  accordingly  obtained  from  the  Spanish  authorities  for  the  de- 
livery of  all  the  posts  on  the  west  side  of  the  river  and  on  the  island  of  New 
Orleans.  No  orders  were  given  to  our  commissioners  to  demand  those 
in  West  Florida  ;  first,  because  it  was  presumed,  that  the  demand  would 
be  rejected  by  the  Spanish  authority  at  New  Orleans,  and  that  the 
French  commissioner  would  not  support  it ;  secondly,  because,  if 
opposed  by  him,  our  title  would  be  weakened,  and  in  either  of  the  cases, 
we  should  be  prematurely  compelled  to  choose  between  an  overt  submis- 
sion to  the  refusal  and  a  resort  to  force  ;  thirdly,  because  mere  silence 
would  be  no  bar  to  a  plea,  at  any  time,  that  a  delivery  of  a  part,  parti- 
cularly of  the  seat  of  government,  was  a  virtual  delivery  of  the  whole ; 
whilst,  in  the  mean  time,  we  could  ascertain  the  views,  and  claim  the 
interposition  of  the  French  government,  and  avail  ourselves  of  any  favor- 
able circumstances  for  eff'ecting  an  amicable  adjustment  with  the  govern- 
ment of  Spain. 

In  May,  1803,  Mr.  King,  our  minister  at  London,  concluded  a  treaty 
adjusting  the  boundary  line  between  the  two  nations.  On  the  24th  of 
October  it  was  laid  before  the  senate.  Although  the  president,  in  his 
message  communicating  the  treaty,  had  expressed  his  approval  of  it,  in 
the  ratification  the   5th   article  was  excepted;    and   the   treaty,  thus 


212  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN, 

amended,  was  sent  back  to  the  British  government  for  concurrence.  lu 
th«  letter  accompanying  the  treaty  from  Mr.  Madison,  secretary  of  state, 
to  Mr.  Monroe,  who  had  succeeded  Mr.  King,  the  reason  alleged  for  ex- 
cepting the  5th  article  was,  that  as  it  was  of  a  later  date  than  the  last 
convention  with  France,  ceding  Louisiana  to  the  United  States,  the  line 
to  be  run  in  pursuance  of  the  5th  article  might  be  found  or  alleged  to 
abridge  the  northern  extent  of  that  territory.  Expunging  this  article 
would  leave  the  boundary  where  it  was  when  Louisiana  was  in  posses- 
sion of  France,  and  subject  to  future  friendly  negotiation.  And  con- 
sidering the  remoteness  of  the  time  when  a  line  would  become  necessary, 
the  postponement  was  deemed  to  be  of  little  consequence.  Great  Bri- 
tain did  not  consent  to  the  proposed  amendment ;  and  the  boundary  line 
continued  in  dispute  for  more  than  thirty  years. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

MR.     JEFFERSON^S     RE-ELECTION. RELATIONS     WITH     FRANCE     AND     ENG- 
LAND.  TREATY      WITH      THE     LATTER      REJECTED. AFFAIR      OF      THE 

CHESAPEAKE. SLAVE    TRADE   ABOLISHED. 

Near  the  close  of  the  session  of  1804,  a  caucus  of  the  republican 
members  was  held  for  the  nomination  of  candidates  for  president  and 
vice-president.  Mr.  Jefferson  was  nominated  for  reelection.  Mr.  Burr, 
not  being  generally  acceptable  to  the  party,  was  dropped,  and  George 
Clinton,  of  New  York,  was  selected  as  the  candidate  for  vice-president. 
The  federal  candidates  were  Charles  C.  Pinckney  and  Rufus  King. 
Jefferson  and  Clinton  were  elected  almost  unanimously,  having  received 
each  162  of  the  electoral  votes  to  14  given  for  their  opponents ;  the  lat- 
ter having  received  only  the  votes  of  Connecticut,  (9,)  of  Delaware,  (3,) 
and  2  of  the  1 1  votes  of  Maryland. 

Mr.  Jefferson  differed  essentially  from  his  predecessors  in  his  views  of 
the  means  of  national  defense.  They  had  encouraged  an  effective  fortifi- 
cation of  our  harbors,  and  the  maintenance  of  an  efficient  navy.  Mr. 
Jefferson  supposed  an  adequate  defense  could  be  provided  at  a  far  less 
expense.  At  the  session  of  18Q3,  an  act  was  passed,  authorizing  the 
president  to  procure  the  building  of  fifteen  small  vessels  called  "gun- 
boats," for  which  $50,000  were  appropriated.  The  treaty  with  France 
having  removed  the  occasion  for  any  additional  armament,  the  money 


NATIONAL    DEFENSE "  GUN-BOATS."  213 

was  not  tlien  expended.  Confident,  however,  of  the  ej0&ciency  of  these 
vessels,  he  contemplated  the  gradual  extension  of  this  system  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  that  which  was  then  in  operation.  In  his  annual  message  of 
November,  1804,  he  informed  congress  that  the  building  of  the  boats 
under  the  act  of  1803,  was  in  a  course  of  execution,  and  recommended 
to  congress  to  provide  for  their  increase  from  year  to  year.  His  plan, 
elsewhere  expressed,  was  to  build  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  of  these 
boats,  twenty-five  every  year,  for  ten  years. 

The  advantages  of  this  species  of  vessels  enumerated  in  the  message, 
were,  "  their  utility  toward  supporting  within  our  waters  the  authority 
of  the  laws  ;  the  promptness  with  which  they  will  be  manned  by  the  sea- 
men and  militia  of  the  place  the  moment  they  are  wanting ;  the  facility 
of  their  assembling  from  difi'erent  parts  of  the  coast  to  any  point  where 
they  are  required  in  greater  force  than  ordinary ;  the  economy  of  their 
maintenance  and  preservation  from  decay  when  not  in  actual  service ; 
and  the  competence  of  our  finances  to  this  defensive  provision  without 
any  new  burthen."  The  intended  mode  of  "  preservation  from  decay  " 
was  to  haul  them  up  under  sheds,  whence  they  could  be  readily  launched 
when  wanted.  The  expense  of  these  two  hundred  and  fifty  boats  he  esti- 
mated at  only  about  one  million  of  dollars.  Congress,  however,  not 
sufficiently  confident  of  the  success  of  the  plan,  appropriated  only 
$60,000  for  the  building  of  not  exceeding  twenty-five  boats.  In  April, 
1806,  fifty  more  were  authorized  ;  and  in  December,  1807,  not  exceeding 
one  hundred  and  eighty-eight..  This  system  of  cheap  marine,  however, 
having  been  found  inefficient,  became  very  unpopular,  and  scarcely  sur- 
vived the  period  of  his  administration.  Indeed,  two  years  before  its 
close,  congress,  against  his  own  recommendation,  refused  to  make  an  ap- 
propriation for  this  object. 

As  a  substitute  for  the  usual  expensive  fortifications,  the  president 
proposed  heavy  cannon,  mounted  on  carriages,  to  be  conveyed  to  any 
places  on  the  coast  or  banks  of  our  navigable  waters  where  they  might 
be  wanted  to  resist  the  approach  of  an  enemy. 

Among  the  acts  passed  at  the  second  session  of  the  8th  congress, 
(1804-5,)  the  last  of  Mr.  Jeiferson's  first  term,  was  an  act  to  divide  the 
Indiana  territory  into  two  separate  governments.  By  this  act,  the  ter- 
ritory of  Michigan  was  formed,  and  provision  made  for  its  temporary 
government. 

The  inhabitants  of  Orleans  territory,  being  dissatisfied  with  their  gov- 
ernment, petitioned  congress  for  the  privilege  of  forming  a  state  govern- 
ment. An  act  was  passed,  authorizing  the  president  to  establish  within 
the  territory  a  government  similar  to  that  of  the  Mississippi  territory. 
There  was  to  be  a  legislature  like  that  provided  by  the  ordinance  of  con- 


214  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

gress  of  1787;  an  assembly  elected  by  tbe  people,  and  a  legislative 
council.  [See  Ordinance  of  1787.]  And  the  inhabitants,  when  they 
should  number  60,000,  might  form  a  state  constitution  and  be  admitted 
into  the  union. 

The  district  of  Louisiana,  formerly  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Indiana, 
was  formed  into  a  separate  district  with  a  government  of  its  own,  and 
called  the  territory  of  Louisiana ;  the  governor  to  be  appointed  by  the 
president,  and  the  legislative  power  to  be  vested  in  the  governor  and 
judges,  with  power  also  to  establish  courts. 

On  the  4th  of  March,  1805,  Mr.  Jefferson  was  inaugurated  the  second 
time  as  president  of  the  United  States.  In  his  inaugural  address,  he 
alluded,  in  general  terms,  to  the  policy  of  his  administration  towards 
foreign  nations.  "  Justice  had  been  done  them  on  all  occasions ;  and 
mutual  interests  and  intercourse  on  fair  and  equal  terms  had  been 
cherished."  Respecting  his  domestic  policy  he  said  :  "  The  suppression 
of  unnecessary  offices,  of  useless  establishments  and  expenses,  enabled  us 
to  discontinue  our  internal  taxes.  These,  covering  our  land  with  officers, 
and  opening  our  doors  to  their  intrusions,  had  already  begun  that  pro- 
cess of  domiciliary  vexation,  which,  once  entered,  is  scarcely  to  be  re- 
strained from  reaching  successively  every  article  of  produce  and  property. 
*  *  *  The  remaining  revenue  on  the  consumption  of  foreign  articles, 
is  paid  cheerfully  by  those  who  can  afford  to  add  foreign  luxuries  to  do- 
mestic comforts  ;  being  collected  on  our  seaboard  and  frontiers  only,  and 
incorporated  with  the  transactions  of  our  mercantile  citizens,  it  may  be 
the  pleasure  and  the  pride  of  an  American  to  ask,  What  farmer,  what 
mechanic,  what  laborer,  ever  sees  a  tax-gatherer  in  the  United  States  ? 
These  contributions  enable  us  to  support  the  current  expenses  of  the 
government,  to  fulfill  contracts  with  foreign  nations,  to  extinguish  the 
native  right  of  soil  within  our  limits,  to  extend  those  limits,  and  to  ap- 
ply such  a  surplus  to  our  public  debts,  as  places  at  a  short  day  their  final 
redemption,  and  that  redemption  once  effected,  the  revenue  thereby 
liberated  may,  by  a  just  repartition  among  the  states,  and  a  correspond- 
ing amendment  of  the  constitution,  be  applied,  in  time  of  peace  ^  to  rivers, 
canals,  roads,  arts,  manufactures,  education,  and  other  great  objects 
within  each  state.  In  time  of  war  .  .  .  aided  by  other  resources  reserved 
for  that  crisis,  it  may  meet  within  the  year  all  the  expenses  of  the  year, 
without  encroaching  on  the  rights  of  future  generations  by  burdening 
them  with  the  debts  of  the  past." 

In  reference  to  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana  he  said,  it  "  has  been  dis- 
approved by  some,  from  a  candid  apprehension  that  the  enlargement  of 
our  territory  would  endanger  its  union.  But  who  can  limit  the  extent 
to  which  the  federative  principle  may  operate  effectively  ?     The  larger 


215 

our  association,  the  less  will  it  be  shaken  by  local  passions;  and,  in  any 
view,  is  it  not  better  that  the  opposite  bank  of  the  Mississippi  should  be 
settled  by  our  own  brethren  and  children,  than  by  strangers  of  another 
family  ?  With  which  shall  we  be  most  likely  to  live  in  harmony  and 
friendly  intercourse  ?'' 

His  philanthropic  regard  for  the  Indians  is  thus  expressed  :  "  Endow- 
ed with  the  faculties  and  the  rights  of  men,  breathing  an  ardent  love  of 
liberty  and  independence^  and  occupying  a  country  which  left  them  no 
desire  but  to  be  undisturbed,  the  stream  of  overflowing  population  from 
other  regions  directed  itself  on  these  shores ;  without  power  to  divert,  or 
habits  to  contend  against,  they  have  been  overwhelmed  by  the  current, 
or  driven  before  it ;  now  reduced  within  limits  too  narrow  for  the  hunt- 
er's state,  humanity  enjoins  us  to  teach  them  agriculture  and  the  domes- 
tic arts ;  to  encourage  them  to  that  industry  which  alone  can  enable  them 
to  maintain  their  place  in  existence,  and  to  prepare  them  for  that  state 
in  society,  which  to  bodily  comforts  adds  the  improvement  of  the  mind 
and  morals.  We  have  therefore  liberally  furnished  them  with  the  im- 
plements of  husbandry  and  household  use;  we  placed  among  them 
instructors  in  the  arts  of  first  necessity  ;  and  they  are  covered  with  the 
SBgis  of  the  law  against  aggressors  from  among  ourselves."  But  there 
were  "  powerful  obstacles  to  encounter ;"  among  which  was  "  the  influ- 
ence of  crafty  individuals  among  them  who  now  felt  themselves  some- 
thing, and  feared  to  become  nothing  in  any  other  order  of  things.  *  * 
They  too  have  their  anti-philosophers  who  find  an  interest  in  keeping 
things  in  their  present  state,  who  dread  reformation,  and  exert  all  their 
faculties  to  maintain  the  ascendency  of  habit  over  the  duty  of  improving 
our  reason  and  obeying  its  mandates." 

He  spoke  of  the  abuses  of  the  press  in  opposing  his  administration. 
"  They  might  have  been  corrected  by  the  wholesome  punishments  re- 
served and  provided  by  the  laws  of  the  several  states  against  falsehood 
and  defamation ;  but  public  duties  more  urgent  press  on  the  time  of 
public  servants,  and  the  offenders  have  therefore  been  left  to  find  their 
punishment  in  the  public  indignation."  The  experiment  had  been  suc- 
cessfully tried,  "  whether  a  government,  conducting  itself  in  the  true 
spirit  of  its  constitution,  with  zeal  and  purity,  and  doing  no  act  which  it 
would  be  unwilling  the  whole  world  should  witness,  can  be  written  down 
by  falsehood  and  defamation."  He  approved  the  enforcing  of  state  laws 
against  false  and  defamatory  publications  as  conducive  to  public  morals 
and  public  tranquillity ;  but  "  the  experiment  is  noted,  to  prove  that, 
since  truth  and  reason  have  maintained  their  ground  against  false  opin- 
ions in  league  with  false  facts,  the  press,  confined  to  truth,  needs  no 
other  legal  restraint." 


216  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

He  congratulated  the  country  on  "  the  union  of  sentiment  now  mani- 
fested so  generally,  as  arguing  harmony  and  happiness  to  our  future 
course."  Others  would  rally  to  the  same  point ;  "  facts  were  piercing 
through  the  veil  drawn  over  them  ;"  and  the  "  doubting  would  at  length 
think  and  act  with  the  mass  of  their  fellow-citizens." 

The  9th  congress  commenced  its  1st  session  the  2d  of  December,  1805. 
The  message  of  the  president  was  chiefly  devoted  to  our  foreign  relations, 
which  it  represented  as  being  in  an  unfavorable  condition.  He  said  : — 
"  Our  coasts  have  been  infested  and  our  harbors  watched  by  private 
armed  vessels,  some  of  them  without  commissions,  some  with  illegal 
commissions,  others  with  those  of  legal  form,  but  committing  piratical 
acts  beyond  the  authority  of  their  commissions.  They  have  captured  in 
the  very  entrance  of  our  harbors,  as  well  as  in  the  high  seas,  not  only 
the  vessels  of  our  friends  coming  to  trade  with  us,  but  our  own  also." 
Allusion  was  herein  made  to  the  French  and  Spanish  cruisers  who  infest- 
ed our  southern  coast,  annoying  our  commerce  with  the  West  Indies. 

He  referred  also  to  the  unsettled  difficulties  with  Spain.  She  still 
refused  to  ratify  the  treaty  which  provided  compensation  for  spoliations 
during  the  former  European  war ;  and  had  renewed  the  same  practice 
since  the  renewal  of  that  war.  On  the  Mobile,  our  commerce  was  ob- 
structed by  arbitrary  duties  and  vexatious  searches ;  and  she  had  re- 
jected propositions  for  adjusting  amicably  the  boundaries  of  Louisiana. 
Inroads  had  been  made  into  the  territories  of  Orleans  and  the  Missis- 
sippi, and  our  citizens  plundered  in  the  very  ports  which  had  been  de- 
livered up  by  Spain  :  and  he  had  found  it  necessary  to  order  troops  to 
the  frontier  to  protect  our  citizens  and  repel  future  aggressions.  Other 
details  would  be  the  subject  of  another  communication. 

The  message  also  noticed  the  conduct  of  Great  Britain.  "  The  same 
system  of  hovering  on  our  coasts  and  harbors  under  color  of  seeking  ene- 
mies has  been  also  carried  on  by  public  armed  ships,  to  the  great  annoy- 
ance and  oppression  of  our  commerce.  New  principles,  too,  have  been 
interpolated  into  the  law  of  nations,  founded  neither  in  justice  nor  the 
usage  or  acknowledgment  of  nations.  According  to  these,  a  belligerent 
takes  to  himself  a  commerce  with  its  own  enemy  which  it  denies  to  a 
neutral,  on  the  ground  of  its  aiding  that  enemy  in  the  war.  But  reason 
revolts  at  such  an  inconsistency,  and  the  neutral  having  equal  right  with 
the  belligerent  to  decide  the  question,  the  interest  of  our  constituents 
and  the  duty  of  maintaining  the  authority  of  reason,  the  only  umpire  be- 
tween just  nations,  impose  on  us  the  obligation  of  providing  an  effectual 
and  determined  opposition  to  a  doctrine  so  injurious  to  the  rights  of 
peaceable  nations." 

In  the  new  European  war,  France,  Holland,  and  Spain  were  allied 


RELATIONS  WITH  FRANCE  AND  ENGLAND.  217 

against  Great  Britain.  The  exposure  to  capture  of  the  merchant  vessels 
of  the  belligerent  nations,  had  caused  their  withdrawal  from  the  ocean : 
and  the  United  States  and  other  neutral  maritime  nations  were  enjoying 
an  immensely  profitable  carrying  trade,  not  only  with  the  colonies  of  the 
belligerents,  but  with  their  mother  countries,  and  on  principles  recog- 
nized by  Great  Britain  herself.  It  was  an  established  rule  of  national 
law,  that  the  goods  of  a  neutral,  consisting  of  articles  not  contraband 
of  war,  in  neutral  vessels,  employed  in  a  direct  trade  between  a  neutral 
and  a  belligerent  country,  are  protected,  except  in  ports  invested  or 
blockaded.  In  conformity  to  this  principle,  a  direct  trade  was  carried 
on  with  the  enemies  of  Great  Britain  and  their  colonies,  and  chiefly  by 
American  vessels  ;  and  many  of  the  goods  imported  by  our  merchants 
from  those  colonies,  were  reexported  to  their  parent  countries.  Not 
well  pleased  to  see  American  merchants  so  rapidly  amassing  fortunes, 
and  her  enemies  receiving  by  American  vessels  the  productions  of  their 
own  colonies,  without  the  hazard  which  would  attend  the  transportation 
in  their  own  vessels.  Great  Britain  ordered  the  capture  of  our  vessels, 
alleging  that  the  trade  was  unlawful,  on  the  principle,  that  a  trade  from 
a  colony  to  its  parent  country,  not  being  permitted  to  other  nations  in 
a  time  of  peace,  can  not  be  made  lawful  in  a  time  of  war  ;  that  is  to 
say,  because  these  countries,  in  time  of  peace,  monopolize  the  trade  with 
their  colonies,  the  United  States  might  not  avail  themselves  of  the  ad- 
vantages of  a  participation  in  this  trade  tendered  to  them  in  time  of 
war.  It  was  alleged,  also,  that  the  voyage  was  unbroken  by  the  landing 
of  the  goods  in  a  port  of  the  United  States,  and  paying  duties  there, 
and,  therefore,  that  the  cargo  was  subject  to  condemnation,  even  under 
the  British  regulation  of  1798,  which  so  far  relaxed  the  general  principle 
as  to  allow  a  direct  trade  between  a  belligerent  colony  and  a  neutral 
country  carrying  on  such  a  trade. 

These  were  the  "  new  principles"  which  the  president  said  "  had  been 
interpolated  into  the  law  of  nations."  The  general  principle,  that  a 
neutral  nation  is  disallowed,  in  time  of  war,  a  trade  not  allowed  in  time 
of  peace,  was  of  modern  date,  assumed  by  Great  Britain  for  her  own 
special  interest,  and  maintained  by  no  other  nation.  It  was  contrary 
also  to  the  practice  of  Great  Britain  herself.  She  had  invariably  re- 
laxed her  navigation  laws  in  time  of  war,  so  as  to  admit  neutrals  to 
trade  where  they  were  not  allowed  to  trade  in  time  of  peace,  particu- 
larly with  her  colonies.  She  had,  by  law  and  by  orders  in  council, 
authorized  her  own  subjects  to  trade  directly  with  her  enemies.  And  it 
was  alleged  that  American  vessels  and  cargoes,  after  having  been  con- 
demned by  British  courts  under  pretense  of  unlawful  commerce,  were 
sent,  on  British  account,  to  the  enemies  of  Great  Britain ! 


218  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

These  depredations  upon  American  commerce  produced  great  excite- 
ment and  alarm  among  the  merchants  in  commercial  places.  Memorials 
from  merchants  in  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Charleston,  and 
other  places  were  sent  to  the  president  and  to  congress,  on  the  subject, 
praying  for  the  interposition  of  the  government.  The  number  of  captures 
was  large,  and  had  been  made  principally  by  the  British,  a  few  by  the 
French  and  Spanish  privateers.  Of  the  vessels  captured,  which  had 
been  insured  in  the  Philadelphia  insurance  offices  alone,  there  were 
more  than  seventy.  The  Philadelphia  memorial  pointed  out  the  in- 
consistency of  Grreat  Britain.  In  1801,  it  was  held  by  her  ministry 
and  her  courts,  "  that  the  produce  of  the  colonies  of  the  enemy 
may  be  imported  by  a  neutral  into  his  own  country,  and  be  reexported 
thence,  even  to  the  mother  country  of  such  colony;"  and,  "  that  landing 
the  goods  and  paying  the  duties  in  the  neutral  country,  breaks  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  voyage,  and  is  such  an  importation  as  legalizes  the  trade, 
although  the  goods  be  reshipped  in  the  same  vessel,  and  on  account  of 
the  same  neutral  proprietors,  and  forwarded  for  sale  to  the  mother 
country."  Now,  in  1805,  it  is  decided  that  the  landing  and  paying 
duties  does  not  break  the  continuity  of  the  voyage. 

On  the  17th  of  January,  1806,  the  president  communicated  the  me- 
morials to  congress,  with  a  message  in  which,  he  stated,  that  the  right  of 
a  neutral  to  carry  on  commercial  intercourse  with  every  part  of  the 
dominions  of  a  belligerent  permitted  by  the  laws  of  the  country,  (except 
blockaded  ports  and  contraband  of  war,)  had  been  recognized  by  Great 
Britain  in  the  actual  payment  of  damages  awarded  to  the  United  States 
for  the  infraction  of  that  right,  in  which  award  her  "  own  commissioners 
had  concurred.  He  also  noticed  the  impressment  of  our  seamen  by 
Great  Britain. 

In  answer  to  a  resolution  of  the  senate,  Mr.  Madison,  secretary  of 
state,  communicated  a  statement  of  the  various  principles  interpolated 
into  the  law  of  nations  by  Great  Britain  and  France.  Among  those  in- 
troduced by  the  latter,  was  a  decree,  that  every  privateer,  of  which  two- 
thirds  of  the  crew  should  not  be  either  natives  of  England,  or  subjects 
of  a  power  the  enemy  of  France,  should  be  considered  as  pirates ;  and 
another,  that  every  foreigner  found  on  board  the  vessels  of  war  or  of 
commerce  of  the  enemy,  was  to  be  treated  as  a  prisoner  of  war,  and 
could  have  no  right  to  the  protection  of  the  diplomatic  and  commercial 
agents  of  his  nation.  Other  unjustifiable  innovations  on  the  law  of  na- 
tions were  found  in  a  decree  issued  from  St.  Domingo,  against  our  trade 
with  the  revolted  blacks  of  that  island.  The  secretary  mentioned,  as  an 
unjustifiable  measure,  the  mode  of  search  practiced  by  British  ships,  and 
by  the  cruisers  of  France  and  Spain.     Instead  of  remaining  at  a  proper 


RELATIONS    WITH    FIIANCE    AND    ENGLAND-  219 

distance  from  the  vessel  to  be  searched,  and  sending  their  own  boat  with 
a  few  men  for  the  purpose,  the}^  compelled  the  vessel  to  send  her  papers 
in  her  own  boat,  and  sometimes  with  great  danger  from  the  condition  of 
the  boat  and  the  state  of  the  weather.  A  report  from  the  secretary  of 
state,  March  5.  1806,  stated  the  number  of  American  seamen  impressed 
or  detained  by  British  ships  of  war  or  privateers  whose  names  had  been 
reported  to  the  department  since  the  statement  made  at  the  last  session, 
to  be  913,  and  the  aggregate  number  since  the  commencement  of  the 
present  war  in  Europe,  2273.  An  act  was  passed  at  this  session,  (Feb. 
13,  1806,)  appropriating  two  millions  of  dollars  "  for  defraying  any  ex- 
traordinary expenses  attending  the  intercourse  between  the  United 
States  and  foreign  nations."  The  passage  of  this  act  was  the  occasion 
of  much  excited  feeling  in  the  house,  and  of  a  temporary  defection  of  a 
portion  of  the  democratic  members.  On  the  6th  of  December,  a  confi- 
dential message  on  the  subject  of  our  difl5culties  with  Spain,  was  sent  to 
the  house,  submitting  the  question  as  to  the  employment  of  force  in  re- 
pelling her  aggressions  in  Louisiana.  The  message,  with  the  accompany- 
ing papers,  having  been  read  with  closed  doors,  was  referred  to  a  select 
committee,  of  which  John  Randolph  was  chairman ;  and  who  was  in- 
formed by  the  president  and  Messrs.  Madison  and  Gallatin,  that  really, 
instead  of  troops,  money  was  wanted  for  the  president,  to  be  used  in  ne- 
gotiation for  the  purchase  of  Florida,  or  at  least  the  western  part  of  it, 
Randolph  was  told,  also,  says  Hildreth,  that,  as  things  now  stood, 
France  would  not  allow  Spain  to  adjust  her  differences  with  us  ;  that  she 
wanted  money,  and  that  we  must  give  it  to  her,  or  have  a  Spanish  and 
French  war.  The  reason  for  not  asking  openly  for  the  money,  has  been 
supposed  to  be,  that  the  president  did  not  wish  to  subject  the  adminis- 
tration to  the  charge  of  inconsistency,  by  placing  in  the  hands  of  the 
executive  large  sums  of  money  for  unknown  objects,  a  practice  which 
they  had  expressly  condemned ;  but  preferred  that  the  appropriation 
should  appear  to  have  been  made  by  congress  without  solicitation. 

Mr.  Randolph  was  much  displeased  at  the  attempt  to  raise  the  money 
in  this  covert  manner;  and  the  efforts  of  Mr,  Bidwell,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, who  endeavored,  at  the  instance  of  the  president,  to  get  the 
appropriation  incorporated  into  the  report  were  unsuccessful.  The 
committee  reported  on  the  3d  of  January,  1806,  that  the  refusal  of 
Spain  to  ratify  the  treaty  of  1802,  and  to  adjust  the  boundaries  of 
Louisiana ;  her  taxing  of  our  commerce  on  the  Mobile ;  and  her  viola- 
tions of  our  territory,  afforded  just  cause  of  war  \  but  the  committee, 
rather  than  recommend  any  measure  that  would  interrupt  the  prosperity 
of  the  country,  reported  a  resolution  in  favor  of  raising  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  troops  to  protect  the  southern  territory  against  Spanish  aggression. 


220  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Mr.  Bid  well  then  submitted  a  resolution  proposing  an  appropriation 
for  the  purpose  of  defraying  any  extraordinary  expenses  that  might  be 
incurred  in  foreign  intercourse.  The  resolution  of  the  committee  was 
rejected,  owing  perhaps  to  the  fact  that,  during  the  debate,  one  of  the 
president's  friends  inadvertently  disclosed  his  "  secret  wishes"  to  the 
house;  and  Mr.  Bidwell's  resolution  for  appropriating  $2,000,000  was 
adopted.  The  act  making  the  appropriation  authorized  the  president  to 
borrow  the  money  at  six  per  cent.,  and  pledged  for  its  reimbursement 
the  extra  duty  of  two  and  a  half  per  cent.,  mentioned  in  a  preceding 
chapter,  as  constituting  the  Mediterranean  fund,  which,  peace  having 
been  made  with  Tripoli,  was  not  wanted  for  the  purpose  intended.  A 
resolution  was  adopted,  however,  declaring  that  "  an  exchange  of  terri- 
tory between  the  United  States  and  Spain,  would  be  the  most  advantageous 
mode  of  settling  the  existing  differences  about  their  respective  bound- 
aries." 

On  this  question,  and  from  this  time,  Mr.  Randolph  and  a  few  other 
republican  members  cooperated  with  the  federalists,  with  whom  he  sub- 
sequently (1812)  voted  against  the  declaration  of  war.  His  opposition 
to  the  administration  has  been  by  some  attributed  to  the  refusal  of  Mr. 
Jefferson  to  appoint  him  to  a  foreign  mission  for  which  his  friends  had 
made  application,  though  without  his  own  solicitation. 

To  appease  the  government  of  France,  whose  complaints  had  assumed 
a  somewhat  menacing  aspect,  an  act  was  passed  to  suspend  all  commer- 
cial intercourse  with  the  revolting  blacks  of  St.  Domingo.  All  persons 
residing  in  the  United  States  were  forbidden  to  trade  with  any  person 
in  any  part  of  that  island  not  in  possession  or  under  the  acknowledged 
government  of  France,  on  pain  of  forfeiture  of  the  vessel  and  cargo. 

To  retaliate  the  impressment  of  our  seamen  and  the  infringement  of 
our  neutral  rights,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  an  act  was  passed,  pro- 
hibiting the  importation,  from  any  of  her  ports,  or  of  the  ports  of  her 
colonies,  any  goods  manufactured  of  leather,  silk,  hemp,  tin,  or  brass  ;  low 
priced  woolen  cloths,  window  glass  and  glass  ware,  silver  and  plated 
ware,  paper  of  every  description,  nails  and  spikes, '  hats,  ready-made 
clothing,  millinery,  playing  cards,  beer,  ale,  porter,  pi(?tures  and  prints. 

An  act  was  passed,  authorizing  the  president,  if  he  should  deem  it 
necessary,  to  call  on  the  executives  of  the  states  for  100,000  militia,  to 
be  kept  in  readiness  for  immediate  service  ;  and  an  act  appropriating  not 
exceeding  $150,000  for  fortifying  forts  and  harbors,  and  not  exceeding 
$250,000  for  building  the  fifty  gun-boats  before  mentioned. 

At  this  session  was  passed  the  act  authorizing  the  construction  of  the 
Cumberland  road ;  a  work  which  has  been  the  subject  of  more  frequent 
discussions  and  appropriations  than  almost  any  other  public  improve- 


TREATY    WITH    ENGLAND    REJECTED.  22(1 

ment  ever  projected  in  this  country.  The  road  was  to  he  made  from 
Cumherlaud  in  Maryland,  to  the  state  of  Ohio.  It  has  since  been  con- 
tinued westward  through  several  states. 

To  carry  out  the  intention  of  the  act  appropriating  the  money  for  the 
purchase  of  Florida,  the  president  appointed  General  Armstrong,  of  New 
York,  and  Mr.  Bowdoin,  of  Massachusetts,  as  joint  commissioners  with 
those  of  Spain,  to  settle  our  difficulties  with  that  country.  They  met  at 
Paris.  It  was  hoped  that  the  influence  of  the  French  government  might 
aid  in  effecting  the  desired  consummation.  The  negotiation,  however, 
was  unsuccessful.  Mr.  Bowdoin  was  at  the  time  minister  to  Spain.  Mr. 
Charles  Pinckney  having  desired  to  he  recalled,  Mr.  Bowdoin  had  been 
appointed  to  succeed  him. 

It  will  be  recollected,  that  the  first  ten  articles  of  the  treaty  negoti- 
ated by  Mr.  Jay,  in  1794,  were  permanent,  and  that  the  articles  regu- 
lating commercial  intercourse  were  to  continue  in  force  two  years  after 
the  conclusion  of  the  then  existing  European  war,  but  in  no  case  longer 
than  ten  years.  This  part  of  the  treaty  having  expired  in  1804,  the 
British  government  proposed  to  extend  the  period  of  its  continuance. 
The  benefits  ascribed  to  this  treaty,  had  induced  a  large  portion  of  the 
people  to  suppose  that  an  offer  to  renew  it  would  have  been  accepted. 
But  it  was  declined.  Among  the  objections  to  the  treaty  at  the  time  of 
its  ratification,  were  its  supposed  unfavorable  operation  upon  the  inter- 
ests of  France,  and  the  absence  of  any  stipulation  against  the  impress- 
ment of  our  seamen.  The  latter  objection,  in  particular,  was  urged 
against  its  renewal.  A  provision  against  impressment  was  certainly  very 
desirable,  and  it  was  probably  hoped  by  the  administration,  that  the 
British  government  would  eventually  be  induced  to  consent  to  such  pro- 
vision. 

On  the  12th  of  May,  1806,  William  Pinkney,  of  Maryland,  was  asso- 
ciated with  Monroe,  as  envoy  plenipotentiary  to  Great  Britain.  Another 
attempt  was  made  to  effect  a  satisfactory  arrangement  on  the  subject  of 
impressment.  But  the  British  government  was  still  unwilling  to  relin- 
quish its  claim  to  take  from  our  vessels  such  seamen  as  appeared  to  be 
British  subjects. 

On  the  31st  of  December,  a  treaty  was  concluded  with  British  com 
missioners.  A  large  proportion  of  the  provisions  of  this  treaty  was 
taken  from  that  of  1794.  It  was  also  silent  on  the  subject  of  impress- 
ment. In  their  letter  accompanying  the  treaty,  our  ministers  said,  that, 
although  the  British  government  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  relinquish  the 
claim  to  search  our  merchant  vessels  for  British  seamen,  satisfactory 
assurance  had  been  given  them,  that  the  practice  would  be  essentially 
if  not  completely  abandoned ;  and  that  by  the  policy  adopted  by  that 


222  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

government,  the  United  States  were  made  as  secure  against  the  exercise 
of  the  right  claimed  as  if  it  had  been  relinquished  by  treaty.  On  the 
2d  of  March,  the  president  received  from  Mr.  Erskine,  the  British  min- 
ister at  Washington,  a  copy  of  the  treaty ;  but  considering  it  liable  to 
several  serious  objections,  the  most  important  of  which  seemed  to  be  that 
it  contained  no  stipulation  against  impressment,  he  did  not  even  submit 
it  to  the  senate. 

The  rejection  of  the  treaty,  by  which  our  commercial  intercourse  with 
Grreat  Britain  was  left  without  regulation,  caused  much  dissatisfaction 
with  the  commercial  community.  And  the  refusal  of  the  president  to 
submit  it  to  the  senate,  was  condemned  by  the  federal  party.  It  was 
admitted  to  be  objectionable  in  several  particulars ;  but  the  negotiators 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States  being  political  friends  of  the  president, 
and  having  been  also  opposed  to  the  treaty  of  1794,  it  was  presumed 
that  a  better  treaty  could  not  be  obtained  ;  and  it  was  preferable  to  no 
treaty  at  all.  Or,  had  it  been  laid  before  the  senate,  some  valuable 
modification  of  it  might  perhaps  have  been  effected. 

The  course  of  the  president  was  approved  by  the  republican  party. 
As  the  advice  of  the  senate  was  not  binding  on  the  executive,  he  ought 
not  to  yield  to  it  when,  in  his  judgment,  a  measure  was  clearly  prejudi- 
cial to  the  public  interest.  It  had  been  said  that  he  ought  to  have  sub- 
mitted it  with  propositions  for  its  modification.  But  if  he  was  convinced 
that  the  treaty  was  all  that  could  be  obtained  from  the  British  govern- 
ment, and  that  its  adoption  was  impolitic,  the  withholding  of  it  could 
not  be  justly  considered  a  violation  of  duty. 

A  renewal  of  the  negotiation,  with  a  view  to  certain  alterations  of  the 
rejected  treaty,  was  proposed  by  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney  to  Mr.  Can- 
ning, successor  to  Mr.  Fox,  who  had  died  since  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty. 
But  the  proposal  to  negotiate  on  the  basis  of  that  treaty  was  declined. 
Mr.  Monroe  conceiving  any  acceptable  arrangement  with  the  British 
government  to  be  hopeless,  returned  near  the  close  of  the  year  1807. 

Displeased  at  the  manner  in  which  the  treaty  had  been  received,  Mr. 
Monroe,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Madison,  dated  February  23,  1808,  vindicated 
the  course  of  himself  and  his  associate,  and  the  treaty  they  had  negoti- 
ated. He  considered  the  informal  assurance  alluded  to,  and  the  accom- 
panying explanations,  as  placing  the  United  States  on  ground  both 
honorable  and  advantageous.  "  The  British  paper,"  continues  Mr. 
Monroe,  "  states  that  the  king  was  not  prepared  to  disclaim  or  derogate 
from  a  right  on  which  the  security  of  the  British  navy  might  essentially 
depend,  especially  in  a  conjuncture  when  he  was  engaged  in  wars  which 
enforced  the  necessity  of  the  most  vigilant  attention  to  the  preservation 
and  supply  of  his  naval  force  ;  that  he  had  directed  his  commissioners  to 


AFFAIR    OF    THE    CHESAPEAKE.  223 

give  to  the  commissioners  of  the  United  States  the  most  positive  assu- 
rances that  instructions  had  been  given,  and  should  be  repeated  and 
enforced,  to  observe  the  greatest  caution  in  the  impressing  of  British 
seamen,  to  preserve  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  from  molestation 
or  injury  ;  and  that  prompt  redress  should  be  afforded  on  any  represen- 
tation of  injury  sustained  by  them."  He  said,  "  the  negotiation  on  the 
subject  of  impressment  was  to  be  postponed  for  a  limited  time  and  for 
a  special  object  only,  and  to  be  renewed  as  soon  as  that  object  was 
accomplished ;  and,  in  the  interim,  that  the  practice  of  impressment  was 
to  correspond  essentially  with  the  views  and  interests  of  the  United 
States." 

The  opinion  that  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  would  have  been  the 
better  policy,  has  always  been  extensively  entertained.  By  leaving  the 
question  of  impressment  open  for  future  negotiation,  nothing  could  have 
been  lost,  while  by  the  rejection  of  the  treaty  much  was  hazarded.  It 
was  construed  by  the  government  of  Great  Britain  into  an  indisposition 
on  the  part  of  the  president,  to  preserve  a  friendly  intercourse  with  that 
nation.  It  left  the  relations  between  the  two  countries  in  a  loose  and 
irritating  condition,  and  was  considered  as  one  of  a  train  of  causes  that 
resulted  in  the  war  of  1812. 

On  the  22d  of  June,  1807,  a  British  squadron  of  four  vessels  lay  at 
anchor  near  the  capes  of  Virginia.  As  the  United  States  frigate  Chesa- 
peake passed  the  squadron,  the  British  frigate  Leopard  put  off  and  went 
to  sea  before  the  Chesapeake.  When  the  latter  came  up,  she  was  hailed 
by  Captain  Humphreys  of  the  Leopard,  who  said  he  had  a  dispatch  to 
deliver  from  the  British  commander-in-chief,  meaning  Admiral  Berkeley 
of  the  American  station.  The  dispatch  proved  to  be  an  order  to  take 
from  the  Chesapeake  certain  men  alleged  to  be  deserters  from  a  British 
frigate.  Commodore  Barrow  refused  permission  to  search  his  vessel, 
stating  that  he  had  forbidden  his  officers  to  enlist  British  subjects,  and 
that  he  did  not  believe  any  were  on  board.  Whereupon  the  Chesapeake 
received  a  broadside  from  the  Leopard.  Apprehending  no  danger,  and 
being  unprepared  for  action,  the  Chesapeake  immediately  struck  her  flag, 
having  three  men  killed  and  eighteen  wounded.  A  boat  was  then  sent 
with  an  officer  and  four  men,  from  the  Leopard  to  the  Chesapeake.  Com- 
modore Barrow  considering  the  vessel  a  prize  to  the  Leopard,  the  officers 
tendered  their  swords  to  Captain  Humphreys,  but  he  declined  receiving 
them,  saying  he  only  wished  to  execute  the  order  of  the  admiral ;  and 
having  taken  off  four  men,  left  the  vessel,  which  returned  to  Hampton 
Roads.  A  formal  demand  had  been  made  upon  our  government  by  Mr. 
Erskine,  the  British  minister  at  Washington,  for  the  surrender  of  these 
men.  Three  of  them,  as  was  made  to  appear  after  their  capture,  were 
Americans,  who  had  been  in  the  British  service. 


224  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

This  outrage  produced  great  excitement  throughout  the  United  States, 
and  was  universally  condemned.  It  is  an  established  principle,  that  a 
national  vessel  shall  be  considered  as  part  of  the  territory  of  the  nation, 
and  equally  inviolable;  wherefore  the  orders  of  Berkeley  could  under  no 
circumstances  have  been  justifiable. 

On  the  2d  of  July,  president  JejQFerson  issued  a  proclamation  requiring 
all  British  armed  vessels  then  within  the  harbors  or  waters  of  the  United 
States,  to  depart  without  delay,  and  interdicting  the  entrance  of  such 
vessels. 

A  statement  of  the  affair  having  been  made  by  Mr.  Monroe  to  Mr. 
Canning,  the  latter  declared,  that,  if  the  facts  should  prove  to  be  as 
stated,  the  act  would  be  disowned  by  his  government.  Regarding  the 
proclamation  as  itself  an  act  of  retaliation,  and  as  taking  the  reparation 
into  the  hands  of  the  American  government,  he  inquired  whether  this 
government  would  withdraw  the  proclamation  on  the  knowledge  of  his 
majesty's  disavowal  of  the  act  which  had  occasioned  its  publication. 
Mr.  Monroe  having  remarked,  in  his  note  to  Mr.  Canning,  that  it  would 
be  "  improper  to  mingle  with  this  more  serious  cause  of  complaint,  other 
examples  of  indignity  and  outrage  to  which  the  United  States  have  been 
exposed  from  the  British  squadron."  Mr.  Canning  also  expressed  the 
wish  of  his  government  to  adjust  the  case  of  the  Leopard  independently 
of  the  question  of  impressment  with  which  it  had  been  unnecessarily  con- 
nected. And  he  said  it  was  the  intention  of  that  government,  if  Mr. 
Monroe  was  not  authorized  to  treat  of  it  separately,  to  lose  no  time  in 
sending  a  minister  to  America  fully  empowered  to  bring  this  unfortunate 
dispute  to  a  conclusion.  Mr.  Rose  was  afterward  sent  to  this  country 
for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Rose,  on  the  26th  of  January,  1808,  stated  to  Mr.  Madison,  that 
he  was  instructed  not  to  enter  upon  any  negotiation  for  the  adjustment 
of  the  Chesapeake  affair,  while  the  proclamation  continued  in  force ;  and 
in  relation  to  his  not  having  been  commanded  to  enter  into  the  discus- 
sion of  the  other  causes  of  complaint,  he  said,  "  it  was  because  it  had 
been  deemed  improper  to  mingle  them  with  the  present  matter ;  an 
opinion  originally  and  distinctly  expressed  by  Mr.  Monroe,  and  assented 
to  by  Mr.  Canning." 

Mr.  Madison,  in  his  reply,  on  the  5th  of  March,  remarked  :  "  It  has 
been  sufficiently  shown  that  the  proclamation,  as  appears  on  the  face  of 
it,  was  produced  by  a  train  of  occurrences  terminating  in  the  attack  on 
the  American  frigate,  and  not  by  this  last  alone.  To  a  demand,  there- 
fore, that  the  proclamation  be  revoked,  it  would  be  perfectly  fair  to  op- 
pose a  demand,  that  redress  be  first  given  for  the  numerous  irregularities 
which  preceded  the  aggression  on  the  American  frigate,  as  well  as  for 


SLAVE    TRADE    ABOLISHED.  225 

this  particular  aggression."  And  he  argued,  that  even  if  the  proclama- 
tion had  been  founded  upon  this  single  aggression,  the  discontinuance  of 
the  proclamation  could  not  be  justly  claimed,  because,  as  the  seamen  in 
question  were  still  retained,  the  aggression  had  not  yet  been  discontinued. 

Mr.  Rose,  having  no  authority  to  enter  upon  a  negotiation  on  the  con- 
ditions required  by  our  government,  informed  Mr.  Madison  that  his 
mission  was  terminated.  This  affair  continued  unadjusted  for  more  than 
four  years  after  its  occurrence ;  when  Mr.  Foster,  then  minister  at 
"Washington,  in  behalf  of  his  government,  disavowed  the  act  of  Berkeley, 
(who  had  been  recalled  soon  after  the  aggression,)  and  offered  to  restore 
the  seamen  and  to  make  suitable  pecuniary  provision  for  the  sufferers, 
including  the  families  of  the  seamen  killed  and  wounded  in  the  action. 
Thus  was  this  difficulty  at  length  amicably  settled.  Its  effects,  however, 
upon  other  questions  at  issue  between  the  two  countries,  were  not  wholly 
removed. 

It  was  soon  after  the  outrage  upon  the  Chesapeake,  that  the  United 
States  became  a  party  in  the  triangular  warfare  of  commercial  restric- 
tions which  preceded  the  war  of  1812,  and  constituted  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal causes  of  that  war.  A  connected  history  of  our  difficulties  with 
England  and  France  will  be  given  in  succeeding  chapters. 

In  his  message  at  the  commencement  of  the  session  of  1806  and  1807, 
Mr.  Jefferson  suggested  to  congress  the  interposition  of  its  authority  for 
the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade,  which,  by  the  constitution,  might  be 
terminated  at  the  end  of  the  year  1807.  An  act  was  accordingly  passed 
at  this  session,  to  take  effect  at  the  earliest  possible  day.  It  prohibited 
the  importation,  after  the  1st  of  January,  1808,  of  all  persons  of  color, 
with  intent  to  hold  or  dispose  of  them  as  slaves,  or  to  be  held  to  service  or 
labor.  Any  person  concerned  in  fitting  out  a  vessel  for  the  slave  trade, 
was  made  liable  to  a  fine  of  $20,000  ;  or  aiding  or  abetting  therein,  for 
the  purpose  above  mentioned,  was  subjected  to  a  penalty  of  $20,000 ; 
and  the  vessel  was  forfeited.  And  the  taking  on  board  of  any  vessel,  in 
a  foreign  country,  any  colored  person  with  intent  to  sell  him  within  the 
United  States,  was  declared  a  high  misdemeanor,  punishable  by  imprison- 
ment not  more  than  ten,  nor  less  than  five  years,  and  by  fine  not  exceed- 
ing $10,000,  nor  less  than  $1,000.  And  any  person  knowingly  pur- 
chasing or  selling  a  colored  person  imported  contrary  to  this  act,  was 
liable  to  a  fine  of  $800.  The  president  was  authorized  to  man  and  em- 
ploy armed  vessels  to  cruise  on  the  coast  of  the  United  States,  and  to 
direct  the  commanders  of  armed  vessels  to  take  and  bring  into  port  any 
vessel  having  on  board  colored  persons  intended  to  be  sold  as  slaves  ;  the 
vessels  if  found  within  the  jurisdictional  limits  of  the  United  States, 
were  liable  to  forfeiture ;  and  it  authorized  the  president  to  man  and 

15 


226  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

employ  cruisers  to  seize  and  bring  into  port  any  vessel  violating  this 
act ;  such  vessel  to  be  forfeited,  and  her  commander  to  be  liable  to  fine 
not  exceeding  $10,000,  and  imprisoned  not  more  than  four  nor  less  than 
two  years.  Coasting  vessels  of  not  less  than  forty  tons  burthen  were 
permitted  to  transport  slaves,  under  certain  regulations,  from  state  to 
state  ;  and  vessels  of  less  burthen  than  forty  tons  might,  without  being 
subject  to  the  same  penalties,  transport  slaves  on  rivers  and  inland  bays 
of  the  sea. 

As  usual  on  questions  relating  to  slavery,  there  was  a  warm  debate  on 
this  occasion.  To  the  prohibition  of  the  importation  of  slaves,  there  was 
no  opposition.  But  certain  details  of  the  measure  were  the  subjects  of 
much  controversy.  It  was  proposed  that  the  persons  unlawfully  brought 
into  the  country  should  be  forfeited  to  the  United  States,  and  sold  for 
life,  for  the  public  benefit.  Another  proposition  was  to  make  them  free. 
And  another  to  apprentice  them  for  a  term  of  years.  A  majority  were 
unwilling  that  the  general  government  should  be  subjected  to  reproach 
by  the  sale  of  human  beings,  and  also  that  they  should  all  be  made  free, 
as  some  states  had  forbidden  emancipation  :  it  was  therefore  finally 
agreed,  that  the  several  states  should  provide  for  the  disposal  of  them. 


CHAPTER    XYL 

THE  COMMERCIAL  WARFARE  BETWEEN  GREAT  BRITAIN,  FRANCE,  AND  THE 
UNITED  STATES.  BRITISH  ORDERS  IN  COUNCIL  ;  FRENCH  BERLIN  AND 
MILAN   DECREES ;    THE    EMBARGO,  &C.  ;    DIPLOMATIC    DISCUSSIONS. 

The  war  of  1812  may  be  traced  to  remote  causes — to  those  of  a  date 
anterior  even  to  that  of  the  earliest  transactions  with  which  we  com- 
mence the  following  sketch. 

In  August,  1804,  Great  Britain  declared  the  French  ports,  from  Os- 
tend  to  the  Seine,  in  a  state  of  blockade.  On  the  16th  of  May,  1806, 
the  British  secretary  of  state,  Mr.  Fox,  notified  our  minister  at  London, 
Mr.  Monroe,  that  measures  had  been  directed  to  be  taken  for  the  block- 
ade of  all  the  coasts,  rivers,  and  ports,  from  the  river  Elbe  to  the  river 
Brest,  both  inclusive.  This  order,  however,  did  not  apply  to  neutral 
vessels  laden  with  goods-  not  the  property  of  his  majesty's  enemies,  and 
not  contraband  of  war,  provided  they  had  not  been  laden  at  an  enemy's 
port,  nor  were  bound  to  an  enemy's  port.     Such  vessels  were  "  not  pre- 


COMMERCIAL    WARFARE.  227 

vented  from  approaching  the  said  coasts,  rivers,  and  ports,  except  those 
from  Ostend  to  the  river  Seine,  which  were  to  he  considered  as  con- 
tinued in  a  state  of  rigorous  hlockade." 

The  next  day,  May  1 7,  Mr.  Monroe  communicated  to  Mr.  Madison, 
secretary  of  state,  the  note  of  Mr.  Fox  ;  and  in  the  letter  accompanying 
it,  Mr.  Monroe  remarked,  in  relation  to  the  supposed  effects  of  this 
measure  upon  the  trade  of  the  United  States,  as  follows :  "  The  note  is 
couched  in  terms  of  restraint,  and  professes  to  extend  the  blockade 
further  than  was  heretofore  done ;  nevertheless  it  takes  it  from  many 
ports  already  blockaded,  indeed  from  all  cast  of  Ostend  and  west  of  the 
Seine,  except  in  articles  contraband  of  war  and  enemies'  property,  which 
are  scizable  without  blockade.  And  in  like  form  of  exception,  consider- 
ing every  enemy  as  one  power,  it  admits  the  trade  of  neutrals,  within 
the  same  limit,  to  be  free,  in  the  productions  of  enemies'  colonies,  in 
every  but  the  direct  route  between  the  colony  and  the  parent  country. 
*  *  *  It  can  not  be,  doubted  that  the  note  was  drawn  by  the  government 
in  reference  to  the  question  ;  and  if  intended  by  the  cabinet  as  a  founda- 
tion on  which  Mr.  Fox  is  authorized  to  form  a  treaty,  and  obtained  by 
him  for  the  purpose,  it  must  be  viewed  in  a  very  favorable  light.  It 
seems  clearly  to  put  an  end  to  further  seizures,  on  the  principle  which 
has  been  heretofore  in  contestation."  And  on  the  20th  of  May,  Mr. 
Monroe  wrote  again :  "  From  what  I  could  collect,  I  have  been 
strengthened  in  the  opinion  which  I  communicated  to  you  in  my  last, 
that  Mr.  Fox's  note  of  the  16th  was  drawn  with  a  view  to  a  principal 
question  with  the  United  States,  I  mean  that  of  the  trade  with  enemies' 
colonies.  It  embraces,  it  is  true,  other  objects,  particularly  the  com- 
merce with  Russia,  and  the  north  generally,  whose  ports  it  opens  to 
neutral  powers,  under  whose  flag  British  manufactures  will  find  a  market 
there.  In  this  particular,  especially,  the  measure  promises  to  be  highly 
satisfactory  to  the  commercial  interest,  and  it  may  be  the  primary  object 
of  the  government." 

.  This  order  was  followed,  on  the  part  of  Napoleon,  by  the  Berlin 
decree ;  so  called  from  its  having  been  issued  from  the  city  of  Berlin, 
the  capital  of  Prussia,  into  which  city  he  entered  on  his  successful  march 
through  that  kingdom.  This  decree,  dated  the  21st  of  November,  1806, 
declared  the  British  islands  in  a  state  of  blockade ;  and  "  all  commerce 
and  correspondence  with  them  was  prohibited."  "  All  property  whatso- 
ever, belonging  to  a  subject  of  England,  and  all  merchandise  belonging 
to  England,  or  coming  from  its  manufactories,  or  colonies,  was  declared 
lawful  prize."  Napoleon  had  been  successful  with  his  armies,  having 
conquered  a  large  portion  of  Europe ;  but  his  power  on  the  seas  had 
been  much  broken  by  the  superior  force  of  the  British  navy.     Hence  the 


228  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

adoption  of  his  contmeyital  system^  as  it  was  called,  by  wbich  be  intend- 
ed to  stop  all  trade  between  Great  Britain  and  tbe  continent.  In  the 
face  of  existing  treaties  between  France  and  tbe  United  States,  our  min- 
ister at  Paris  was  informed  tbat  tbe  decree  was  applicable  to  American 
commerce. 

This  act  of  tbe  Frencb  government  was  succeeded  by  tbe  British 
orders  in  council,  of  January  7,  1807,  wbich  were  superseded  by,  or 
merged  in,  other  orders  issued  tbe  11  th  of  November  following.  By 
these  orders,  all  ports  and  places  belonging  to  France  and  her  allies, 
from  which  the  British  flag  was  excluded,  and  all  the  colonies  of  his 
Britanic  majesty's  enemies,  were  declared  to  be  in  a  state  of  blockade. 
All  trade  in  the  produce  or  manufactures  of  these  countries  or  colonies 
was  prohibited ;  and  all  vessels  trading  to  or  from  them,  and  all  mer- 
chandise on  board,  were  made  subject  to  capture  and  condemnation ; 
with  an  exception  only  in  favor  of  the  direct  trade  between  neutral 
countries  and  the  colonies  of  his  majesty's  enemies. 

This  measure,  so  detrimental  to  neutral  commerce,  was  followed,  on 
the  17th  of  December,  1 807,  by  another  still  more  sweeping  on  the  part 
of  France,  called  the  Milan  decree,  by  wbich  the  British  islands  were 
declared  in  a  state  of  blockade,  by  sea  and  land ;  and  every  ship,  of 
whatever  nation,  or  whatever  tbe  nature  of  its  cargo,  tbat  should  sail 
from  the  ports  of  England  or  her  colonies,  or  of  countries  occupied  by 
English  troops,  and  proceeding  to  England  or  to  her  colonies,  or  to 
countries  occupied  by  the  English,  to  be  good  prize.  And  every  ship,  of 
whatever  nation,  which  had  submitted  to  search  by  an  English  ship,  or 
bad  made  a  voyage  to  England,  or  paid  any  tax  to  tbat  government,  was 
declared  denationalized^  and  lawful  prize. 

These  measures  were  most  disastrous  to  American  commerce,  and 
wholly  unauthorized  by  the  law  of  nations.  To  be  lawful,  a  blockade 
must  be  maintained  by  a  force  stationed  at  an  enemy's  ports,  sufficient  to 
make  it  dangerous  for  vessels  to  enter.  That  so  extensive  a  blockade 
was  or  could  be  maintained  by  an  adequate  force  was  not  even  pretended 
by  either  party.  It  is  true,  the  government  of  Grreat  Britain  asserted 
that  the  limited  blockade  of  1806  had  been  duly  supported ;  but  the 
pretension  has  never  been  generally  conceded.  Yet,  under  these  orders 
and  decrees,  or  mere  "  paper  blockades,"  as  they  were  called,  an  im- 
mense number  of  American  vessels,  with  their  cargoes,  were  captured 
by  the  privateers  and  cruisers  of  the  two  belligerents,  and  condemned  as 
prize. 

On  the  22d  of  December,  1807,  and  before  intelligence  of  the  Milan 
decree  had  been  received,  congress,  in  pursuance  of  a  recommendation  of 
the  president,  passed  the  famous  embargo  law,  by  which  all  vessels  with- 


FRENCH  BERLIN  AND  MILAN  DECREES.  229 

in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  hound  to  a  foreign  port,  were 
prohibited  from  leaving  their  ports ;  except  foreign  vessels  either  in  bal- 
last, or  with  the  goods  on  hoard  when  notified  of  the  act ;  and  foreign 
armed  vessels  having  public  commissions  for  any  foreign  power.  And 
all  coasting  vessels  were  requirjed,  before  their  departure,  to  give  bonds 
to  land  their  cargoes  at  some  port  in  the  United  States.  The  following 
is  the  message  of  the  president  containing  the  recommendation  of  the 
measure.     It  was  dated  the  18th  of  December,  1807  : 

"  The  communications  now  made,  showing  the  great  and  increasing 
dangers  with  which  our  vessels,  our  seamen,  and  merchandise,  are 
threatened  on  the  high  seas  and  elsewhere,  from  the  belligerent  powers 
of  Europe,  and  it  being  of  the  greatest  importance  to  keep  in  safety 
these  essential  resources,  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  recommend  the  subject 
to  the  consideration  of  congress,  who  will  doubtless  perceive  all  the  ad- 
vantages which  may  be  expected  from  an  inhibition  of  the  departure  of 
our  vessels  from  the  ports  of  the  United  States. 

"  Their  wisdom  will  also  see  the  necessity  of  making  every  precaution 
for  whatever  events  may  grow  out  of  the  present  crisis." 

Accompanying  this  message,  were  four  documents,  the  "  communica- 
tions" to  which  the  message  referred.  One  of  these  documents  was  an 
extract  of  a  letter  from  the  French  grand  judge,  minister  of  justice,  to 
the  imperial  attorney-general  for  the  council  of  prizes,  dated  September 
18,  1807,  containing  Napoleon's  construction  of  the  Berlin  decree; 
which  was,  that  French  "  vessels  of  war  might  seize  on  board  neutral 
vessels  either  English  property,  or  even  all  merchandise  proceeding  from 
the  English  manufactories  or  territory."  Another  document,  dated  Oc- 
tober 16,  1807,  and  taken  from  a  London  newspaper,  purported  to  be  a 
proclamation  by  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  for  recalling  and  prohibiting 
British  seameij  from  service  on  board  of  ships  of  war  belonging  to  any 
foreign  state  at  enmity  with  that  nation .;  declaring  that  all  his  majesty's 
subjects  who  should  voluntarily  continue  in,  or  thereafter  enter,  such 
service,  would  be  guilty  of  high  treason.  Only  these  two  papers  were 
published  as  having  accompanied  the  message. 

The  other  two  papers  were,  a  letter  from  Mr.  Armstrong,  our  minis- 
ter at  Paris,  dated  September  24,  1807,  to  the  minister  of  foreign  rela- 
tions, asking  whether  the  Berlin  decree  was  "  intended,  in  any  degree, 
to  infract  the  obligations  of  the  treaty  subsisting  between  the  United 
States  and  the  French  empire,"  and  Champagny's  answer  of  the  7th  of 
October,  confirming  Napoleon's  construction  of  that  decree  ;  to  which  he 
added,  that  the  decree  of  blockade  had  been  issued  eleven  months ;  that 
the  principal  powers  of  Europe,  so  far  from  protesting  against  its  pro- 
visions, had  adopted  them.     They  had  perceived  that,  to  render  it  effec- 


230  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tual,  it  must  be  complete ;  and  it  had  "  seemed  easy  to  reconcile  the 
measure  with  the  observance  of  treaties,  especially  at  a  time  when  the 
infractions,  by  England,  of  the  rights  of  all  maritime  powers,  render  their 
interests  common,  and  tend  to  unite  them  in  support  of  the  same  cause." 

These  two  letters,  though  communicated  with  the  message  to  congress, 
were,  it  is  said,  returned  at  the  president's  request,  for  the  reason,  as  he 
alleged,  that  it  was  improper  to  publish  them.  What  rendered  their 
publication  improper,  is  left  to  conjecture.  They  were,  however,  some 
months  afterward,  with  a  mass  of  other  documents,  laid  before  congress, 
without  any  intimation  for  what  purpose.  The  political  opponents  of 
the  president  discovered  in  none  of  these  documents  any  new  facts 
"  showing  great  and  increasing  dangers"  calling  for  special  legislation, 
much  less  an  embargo.  The  British  proclamation  was  presumed  to  have 
been  intended  merely  to  secure  her  own  seamen.  They  therefore  looked 
for  the  motive  to  the  measure  in  a  desire  to  appease  France.  Having  at 
that  time  few  vessels  afloat,  she  would  receive  little  injury  from  the  em- 
bargo, while  Great  Britain,  having  command  of  the  ocean,  would  be  the 
principal  sufferer.  The  letter  of  Champagny  clearly  showed  the  inten- 
tion of  forcing  the  United  States  into  an  acquiescence,  if  not  an  active 
cooperation,  in  the  general  war  upon  British  commerce ;  and  but  a  few 
weeks  elapsed  before  the  capture  and  condemnation  of  goods  commenced, 
on  the  ground  that  they  were  the  productions  of  Great  Britain. 

The  federalists  seem  to  have  suspected,  that  the  object  of  the  partial 
suppression  of  Champagny's  letter,  was  to  prevent  the  idea  that  the  em- 
bargo was  intended  to  aid  Bonaparte  in  crippling  the  commerce  of  Great 
Britain  ;  Spain  and  Holland  having  already  ^been  brought,  according  to 
that  letter,  "  to  unite"  with  him  "  in  support  of  the  same  cause."  The 
suspicion  of  the  president's  subserviency  to  France,  was  subsequently 
strengthened  by  letters  from  our  ministers  in  France  and  England,  pub- 
lished in  a  pamphlet,  entitled,  "  Further  Suppressed  Documents,"  which 
made  its  appearance  about  that  time.  One  of  these  letters  was  from 
Mr.  Armstrong  to  Mr.  Madison,  dated  February  22,  1808.  The  follow- 
ing is  an  extract : 

"  I  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  two  facts  which  I  think  sufficiently 
show  the  decided  character  of  the  emperor's  policy  with  regard  to  us. 
These  are,  first,  that  in  a  council  of  administration  held  a  few  days  past, 
when  it  was  proposed  to  modify  the  decrees  of  November,  1806,  and 
December  1807.  (though  the  proposition  was  supported  by  the  whole 
weight  of  the  council,)  he  became  highly  indignant,  and  declared  that 
these  decrees  should  suffer  no  change,  and  that  the  Americans  should  be 
compelled  to  take  the  positive  character  of  either  allies  or  enemies ;  2d, 
that  on  the  27th  of  January  last,  twelve   days  after   Mr.   Champagny's 


SUPPRESSED    DOCUMENTS.  231 

written  assurances  that  these  decrees  should  work  no  change  in  the  pro- 
perty sequestered,  until  our  discussions  with  England  were  brought  to  a 
close,  and  seven  days  before  he  reported  to  me  verbally  these  very  as- 
surances, the  emperor  had,  by  a  special  decision,  confiscated  two  of  our 
ships  and  their  cargoes,  (the  Julius  Henry  and  the  Juniata,)  for  want 
merely  of  a  document  not  required  by  any  law  or  usage  of  the  com- 
merce in  which  they  had  been  engaged.  This  act  was  taken,  as  I  am  in- 
formed, on  a  general  report  of  sequestered  cases  amounting  to  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty^  and  which,  at  present  prices,  will  yield  upwards  of  one 
hundred  millions  of  francs,  a  sum  whose  magnitude  alone  renders  hope- 
less all  attempts  at  saving  it.  Danes,  Portuguese,  and  Americans,  will 
be  the  principal  suflferers.  If  I  am  right  in.  supposing  that  the  emperor 
has  definitively  taken  his  ground,  I  can  not  be  wrong  in  concluding  that 
you  will  immediately  take  yours?'' 

Another  letter,  said  to  have  been  suppressed,  was  from  Mr.  Pinkney, 
who,  after  he  had  received  a  copy  of  the  president's  message  recommend- 
ing the  embargo,  and  of  the  act  passed  in  pursuance  of  it,  wrote  to  Mr. 
Madison  from  London,  January  26,  1808,  that  he  had  given  to  the 
British  government  the  explanations  of  this  measure,  as  Mr.  Madison 
had  suggested,  and  that  "  Mr.  Canning  had  received  the  explanations 
with  great  apparent  satisfaction,  and  had  expressed  his  most  friendly 
disposition  towards  our  country."  And  on  his  having  made  complaint 
to  Mr.  Canning,  that,  as  an  effect  of  the  orders  in  council,  "  American 
vessels  coming  into  British  ports  under  warning,  could  not  obtain  any 
document  to  enable  them  to  return  to  the  United  States,  without  hazard; 
in  the  event  of  its  being  found  imprudent,  either  to  deposit  their  cargoes, 
or  to  resume  their  original  voyages ;  Mr.  Canning  took  a  note  of  what 
he  had  said,  and  assured  him  that  whatever  was  necessary  to  give  the 
facility  in  question,  would  be  done  without  delay  ;  adding,  that  it  was 
their  sincere  wish  to  show,  in  every  thing  connected  with  the  orders  in 
council,  which  only  necessity  had  compelled  them  to  adopt,  their  anxiety 
to  accommodate  them,  as  far  as  was  consistent  with  their  object,  to  the 
feelings  and  interest  of  the  American  government  and  people." 

The  suppression  of  these  documents  was  attributed  to  the  fear  that 
the  people,  seeing  the  contrast  between  the  two  documents,  would  disap- 
prove the  course  of  the  government  toward  the  two  countries.  Certain 
federalists,  since  the  death  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and  the  publication  of  his 
writings,  have  referred  to  a  letter  from  him  to  Robert  L.  Livingston, 
dated  October  15,  1808,  for  a  farther  confirmation  of  the  opinion,  that 
the  embargo  was  designed  to  benefit  France  and  injure  Great  Britain. 
He  says  :  "  The  explanation  of  his  principles,  given  you  by  the  French 
emperor,  in  conversation,  is  correct,  as  far  as  it  goes.     Ho  does  not  wish 


232  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

US  to  go  to  war  with  England,  knowing  we  have  no  ships  to  carry  on 
that  war.  To  submit  to  pay  England  the  tribute  on  our  commerce 
which  she  demands,  by  her  orders  in  council,  would  be  to  aid  her  in  the 
war  against  him,  and  would  give  him  just  ground  to  declare  war  with  us. 
He  concludes,  therefore,  as  every  rational  man  must,  that  the  embargo, 
the  only  remaining  alternative,  was  a  wise  measure."  He  says  in  the 
same  letter  :  "  Had  the  emperor  said  that  he  condemned  our  vessels 
going  voluntarily  into  his  ports  in  breach  of  his  municipal  laws,  we  might 
have  admitted  it  as  rigorously  legal,  though  not  friendly.  But  his  con- 
demnation of  vessels  taken  on  the  high  seas  by  his  privateers,  and  car- 
ried involuntarily  into  his  ports,  is  justifiable  by  no  law,  is  piracy^  and 
this  is  the  wrong  we  complain  of  against  him."  This  conduct  of  France 
being  as  bad  as  that  of  G-reat  Britain  possibly  could  be,  the  federalists 
thought  her  equally  deserving  of  retaliatory  legislation. 

The  effect  of  the  embargo  was  more  or  less  severe  upon  the  three 
countries.  Through  the  British  newspapers  and  other  channels  of  in- 
formation, the  loss  of  the  American  market  to  English  manufacturers, 
was  represented  as  being  most  sensibly  felt ;  and  many  laborers  were 
consequently  thrown  out  of  employment.  It  would  seem,  however,  that 
the  extreme  severity  of  the  measure  was  not  permanent  in  that  country. 
Cotton  was  imported  from  Brazil,  Egypt,  and  the  East  Indies,  and  grain 
from  the  Baltic,  though  at  a  great  disadvantage.  ■  The  revolt  in  Spain, 
caused  by  the  attempt  of  Bonaparte  to  put  one  of  his  own  family  upon 
the  throne  of  that  kingdom,  opened  for  the  British  a  market  in  that 
country  and  in  her  South  American  colonies.  Mr.  Armstrong,  in  a  let- 
ter of  the  30th  of  August,  1808,  also  published  in  the  "  Suppressed 
Documents,"  says  :  "  We  have  somewhat  overrated  the  means  of  coercion 
of  the  two  great  belligerents  to  a  course  of  justice.  *  *  *  Here  it 
(the  embargo)  is  not  felt,  and  in  England,  (in  the  midst  of  the  more  in- 
teresting scenes  of  the  day,)  it  is  forgotten." 

In  the  United  States,  commerce  was  almost  annihilated ;  and  mur- 
murs of  dissatisfaction  prevailed  throughout  the  country.  In  the  New 
England  states  especially,  where  capital  was  invested  chiefly  in  commer- 
cial enterprise,  the  loudest  complaints  were  made  during  the  whole 
period  of  its  continuance.  Not  being  permitted  to  export,  agricultural 
labor  was  poorly  rewarded  ;  and  manufactures  were  obtained,  if  obtained 
at  all,  at  very  high  prices.  Such  was  the  height  to  which  the  disaffec- 
tion at  length  arose  in  the  eastern  states,  as  to  cause  apprehensions  that, 
if  the  embargo  should  be  persisted  in,  it  would  meet  with  violent  resist- 
ance ;  and  those  states  would  withdraw  from  the  union. 

To  mitigate  the  rigor  of  this  restrictive  policy,  congress,  on  the  1  st  of 
March,  1809,  passed  an  act,  since  called  the  non-intercourse  law^  by 


DIPLOMATIC    DISCUSSION.  233 

which  the  embargo  law  was  repealed,  and  all  intercourse  with  Great 
Britain  and  France  prohibited.  But  the  act  provided,  that,  if  either 
nation  should  so  revoke  or  modify  her  edicts  as  that  they  should  cease  to 
violate  the  neutral  commerce  of  the  United  States — which  fact  the  presi- 
dent should  declare  by  proclamation — the  trade  suspended  by  this  act 
and  the  embargo  should  be  renewed  with  that  nation. 

Mr.  Jefferson's  term  of  office  having  expired,  Mr.  Madison  was  inau- 
gurated as  president  on  the  4th  of  March,  1809.  He  appointed  Robert 
Smith,  of  Maryland,  secretary  of  state ;  William  Eustis,  of  Massachu- 
setts, secretary  of  war ;  Paul  Hamilton,  of  South  Carolina,  secretary  of 
the  navy  ;  Albert  Gallatin,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  continued  secretary  of 
the  treasury  ;  and  Cesar  A.  Rodney,  of  Delaware,  was  continued  attorney- 
general.. 

In  April,  Mr.  Erskine,  the  British  minister  at  Washington,  repre- 
sented that  he  was  authorized  by  his  government  to  say,  that,  if  the 
United  States  would  renew  intercourse  with  Great  Britain,  the  orders  in 
council,  so  far  as  they  affected  the  United  States,  would  be  repealed. 
Accordingly,  the  president  issued  a  proclamation  on  the  19th  of  April, 
announcing  that  the  commerce  between  the  two  countries  would  be 
renewed  the  10th  of  June,  on  which  day  the  British  orders  were  to  be 
withdrawn.  The  last  congress  having,  in  consequence  of  the  critical 
state  of  public  affairs,  passed  an  act  convening  the  new  congress  on  the 
22d  of  May,  the  latter  met  on  the  day  appointed.  In  the  message  of 
the  president,  communicated  on  the  23d,  the  first  subject  to  which  he 
called  their  attention  was,  the  "  revision  of  our  commercial  laws,  proper 
to  adapt  them  to  the  arrangement  which  has  taken  place  with  Great 
Britain."     The  necessary  laws  were  accordingly  passed. 

Intelligence,  however,  was  soon  after  received,  that  the  British  gov- 
ernment had  disavowed  the  act  of  their  minister  as  unauthorized ;  who 
admitted  that  he  had  exceeded  the  letter  of  his  instructions  :  but  he  had 
been  induced  to  do  so  from  a  conviction  that  he  should  be  acting  in  con- 
formity with  his  majesty's  wishes.  The  president,  therefore,  on  the  3d 
of  August,  issued  another  proclamation,  declaring  that  the  orders  in 
council  had  not  been  withdrawn,  and  that,  consequently,  the  acts  which 
had  been  suspended  were  to  be  considered  as  in  force.  For  having  thus 
violated  the  instructions  of  his  government,  Mr.  Erskine  was  recalled. 

Mr.  Francis  James  Jackson,  successor  to  Mr.  Erskine,  arrived  at 
Washington  the  ensuing  autumn ;  and  a  correspondence  with  the  secre- 
tary of  state  was  soon  commenced.  This  correspondence  related  to  the 
question  whether  our  government  in  negotiating  with  Mr.  Erskine,  had 
knowledge  of  the  extent  of  his  instructions — whether  it  did  not  know 
that  he  was  not  invested  with  full  power  to  adjust  the  differences  be- 


234  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tweeu  the  two  nations.  Mr.  Erskine  had  been  instructed  to  submit 
three  conditions  as  the  groundwork  of  an  arrangement  between  them  • 
and  if  these  conditions  should  be  officially  recognized  by  the  American 
government,  "  his  majesty  would  lose  no  time  in  sending  a  minister  fully 
empowered  to  consign  them  to  a  formal  and  regular  treaty;"  and  it  ap- 
peared from  Mr.  Erskine's  correspondence  that  the  three  conditions  had 
been  submitted,  although  the  instructions  in  extenso  had  not  been  com- 
municated. They  had,  however,  been  read  at  length  by  Mr.  Canning  to 
Mr.  Pinkney  in  London,  and  they  had  been  made  the  basis  of  the  offi- 
cial correspondence  betw^een  Mr.  Erskine  and  the  secretary  of  state  ;  from 
which,  the  British  minister  contended,  our  government  must  or  might 
have  known  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  instructions.  And  his  persist- 
ence in  maintaining  this  point,  after  an  explicit  declaration  by  the  secre- 
tary, that  our  government  had  not  such  knowledge,  and  that  with  such 
knowledge  the  arrangement  would  not  have  been  made,  was  regarded  as 
a  reflection  upon  the  government ;  and  Mr.  Jackson  was  informed  that 
no  farther  communication  would  be  received  from  him.  lie  immediately 
(November,  1809,)  retired  to  New  York,  where  he  resided  until,  in  pur- 
suance of  the  request  of  the  president,  he  was  recalled.  No  successor  to 
Mr.  Jackson  was  appointed  until  early  in  the  year  1811. 

In  retaliation  of  the  non-intercourse  act,  the  Kambouillet  decree  was 
issued  by  Napoleon  on  the  23d  of  March,  1810.  This  decree,  more 
sweeping  in  its  operation  on  American  property  than  any  that  had  pre- 
ceded it,  extended  back  to  the  20th  of  May,  1809.  Every  American 
vessel  and  cargo,  which  had  since  that  time  entered,  or  should  thereafter 
enter  into  any  ports  of  France  or  her  colonies  or  of  any  country  occupied 
by  the  French,  was  liable  to  be  seized  and  sold.  The  aggressions  of  France 
were  thus  noticed  by  Mr.  Monroe  in  an  official  dispatch  :  "  The  influ- 
ence of  France  has  been  exerted  to  the  injury  of  the  United  States,  in 
all  the  countries  to  which  her  power  has  extended.  In  Spain,  Hol- 
land, and  Naples,  it  has  been  most  sensibly  felt.  In  each  of  these 
countries  the  vessels  and  cargoes  of  American  merchants  have  been  seized 
and  confiscated,  under  various  decrees,  founded  in  diff"erent  pretexts,  none 
of  which  had  even  the  semblance  of  right  to  support  them." 

The  non-intercourse  law  having  expired,  congress,  on  the  1st  of  May, 
1810,  passed  a  new  act,  of  a  similar  nature,  which  provided  that,  if 
either  Great  Britain  or  France  should,  before  the  3d  day  of  March,  1811, 
so  revoke  or  modify  her  edicts  as  that  they  should  cease  to  violate  our 
neutral  commerce,  and  if  the  other  nation  should  not,  within  three 
months  thereafter,  do  the  same,  then  the  act  interdicting  commercial 
intercouse,  should  be  revived  against  the  nation  refusing  to  revoke. 
On  the  5th  of  August,  1810,  the  French  minister  of  foreign  afi'airs, 


DIPLOMATIC    DISCUSSIONS.  235 

the  duke  of  Cadore,  informed  our  minister  at  Paris,  Gen.  Armstrong, 
that  "  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  were  revoked,  and  would  cease  to 
have  eifect  after  the  1st  of  November  following ;"  stating,  as  the  reason 
for  the  revocation,  that  "  the  congress  of  the  United  States  had  retraced 
its  steps,  and  had  engaged  to  oppose  the  belligerent  (Great  Britain) 
which  refused  to  acknowledge  the  rights  of  neutrals."  He  stated  also, 
as  conditions  of  the  repeal  of  the  decrees,  "  that  the  English  shall  revoke 
their  orders  in  council,  and  renounce  the  new  principles  of  blockade 
which  they  have  wished  to  establish ;  or  that  the  United  States  shall 
cause  their  rights  to  be  respected  by  the  English." 

Regarding  this  note  of  the  French  minister  as  suflScient  evidence  of 
the  repeal  of  the  decrees,  the  president,  on  the  2d  of  November,  issued 
a  proclamation  declaring  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  act  of  the  1  st 
of  May  to  be  removed  as  respected  France  and  her  dependencies.  And 
on  the  2d  of  March,  1811,  congress  passed  an  act,  declaring  these  restric- 
tions to  be  in  force  against  Great  Britain.  It  had  been  expected  that 
the  British  government  would  revoke  its  orders  in  case  the  decrees 
should  be  repealed.  This,  however,  it  refused  to  do.  This  refusal  was 
the  occasion  of  a  long  controversy  between  the  two  governments,  com- 
menced at  London  and  continued  and  concluded  at  Washington,  The 
prominent  features  of  the  controversy,  as  presented  by  the  correspond- 
ence between  lord  Wellesley  and  Mr.  Pinkney,  will  appear  from  the 
following  paragraphs  : 

The  British  government  did  not  consider  the  notification  of  the  repeal 
of  the  French  decrees  to  be  such  as  to  justify  the  repealing  of  the  orders 
in  council.  The  repeal  of  the  decrees  was  not  absolute,  but  conditional 
— to  take  effect  the  1st  of  November,  provided  Great  Britain,  before 
that  time,  should  revoke  her  orders,  and  renounce  the  principles  of 
blockade  which  France  alleged  to  be  new.  The  American  government, 
it  was  intimated,  had  united  with  France  in  requiring  of  Great  Britain 
a  renunciation  of  these  new  principles.  To  what  principles  allusion  is 
here  made,  appears  from  the  Berlin  decree,  which  states  that  Great  Bri- 
tain "  extends  the  right  of  blockade  to  commercial  unfortified  towns,  and 
to  ports,  harbors,  and  mouths  of  rivers,  which,  according  to  the  principles 
and  practice  of  all  civilized  nations,  is  only  applicable  to /or^«^e(^  places." 
Great  Britain,  on  the  contrary,  asserted  that  the  principles  of  blockade  con- 
demned by  France  were  ancient,  and  established  by  the  laws  of  maritime 
war  acknowledged  by  all  civilized  nations.  Notwithstanding,  if  France 
had  conditioned  the  repeal  of  her  decrees  on  the  revocation  of  the  British 
orders  alone,  that  condition  would  have  been  fulfilled. 

The  American  government  disclaimed  having  demanded  the  renuncia- 
tion of  the  principles  of  blockade  condemned  by  France.     It  had  simply 


236  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

urged,  that  ports  not  actually  blockaded  by  a  present,  adequate,  stationary 
force,  should  not  be  shut  against  neutral  trade  in  articles  not  contraband 
of  war.  The  blockade  of  1 806  had  not  been  thus  maintained  ;  and  its 
annulment  was  therefore  indispensable  to  the  renewal  of  intercourse.  It 
was  also  insisted  by  the  American  minister,  that  the  French  decrees  were 
repealed,  and  no  longer  in  operation ;  and  that,  as  the  foundation  of  the 
orders  in  council  was  gone,  they  ought  to  be  repealed. 

This  subject  was  afterwards  discussed  at  Washington  by  Mr.  Foster 
and  Monroe.  The  correspondence  was  opened  by  Mr.  Foster  on  the  3d 
of  July,  1811,  of  whose  letter  the  following  is  an  abstract : 

The  decree  of  Berlin  was  an  act  of  war,  by  which  France  prohibited 
all  nations  from  trade  or  intercourse  with  Great  Britain,  under  peril  of 
confiscation  of  their  ships  and  merchandise,  although  she  had  not  the 
means  of  imposing  an  actual  blockade.  The  professed  object  of  the 
decree  was  the  destruction  of  all  British  commerce,  through  means  en- 
tirely unsanctioned  by  the  law  of  nations.  Great  Britain  would  have 
been  justified  in  retaliating  upon  the  enemy  by  a  similar  interdiction 
of  all  commerce  with  France,  and  with  such  other  countries  as  might 
cooperate  with  her  in  her  system  of  commercial  hostility  against  Great 
Britain.  The  latter,  however,  instead  of  prohibiting  the  trade  of 
neutrals  with  France,  had  prohibited  such  trade  only  as  should  not  be 
carried  on  through  Great  Britain.  This  injury  to  neutral  commerce  had 
been  foreseen  and  regretted ;  but  it  arose  from  the  aggression  of  France, 
which  had  compelled  Great  Britain  to  retaliate  in  her  own  defense.  The 
object  of  the  orders  in  council  was  merely  to  counteract  an  attempt  to 
crush  British  trade.  Having  rested  the  justification  of  her  orders  upon 
the  existence  of  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  she  had  always  declared 
her  readiness  to  repeal  those  orders,  whenever  France  should  have  re- 
pealed her  decrees,  and  restored  neutral  commerce  to  the  condition  in 
which  it  stood  before  the  promulgation  of  those  decrees.  France  had  as- 
serted that  the  decree  of  Berlin  was  a  measure  of  just  retaliation  for  the 
previous  aggression  of  Great  Britain  by  her  system  of  blockade,  which 
France  declared  to  be  a  violation  of  the  law  of  nations,  because  it  had 
been  applied  to  unfortified  towns  and  commercial  ports,  to  harbors,  and 
mouths  of  rivers ;  whereas  the  rights  of  blockade,  she  maintained,  were 
limited  to  fortresses  really  invested  by  a  sufficient  force.  She  had  also 
asserted  that  Great  Britain  had  declared  places  in  a  state  of  blockade 
which  the  whole  British  force  would  be  insufficient  to  blockade.  Great 
Britain  denied  that  the  law  of  nations  sanctioned  the  rule  laid  down  by 
France,  that  no  places  but  fortresses  could  be  lawfully  blockaded  by  sea. 

It  was  admitted  by  Great  Britain,  that  no  blockade  was  justifiable  or 
valid  unless  supported  by  an  adequate  force  destined  to  maintain  it,  and 


DIPLOMATIC    DISCUSSIONS.  237 

to  expose  to  hazard  all  vessels  attempting  to  evade  its  operation.  The 
blockade  of  May,  1806,  had  not  been  notified  by  Mr.  Fox,  until  he  had 
satisfied  himself  that  the  board  of  admiralty  had  the  means  and  would 
employ  them,  of  watching  the  whole  coast  from  Brest  to  the  Elbe,  and 
of  enforcing  the  blockade.  And  it  had  been  supported,  both  in  inten- 
tion and  fact,  until  the  time  when  the  orders  in  council  were  issued. 
France  had  declared  a  blockade  of  all  the  ports  and  coasts  of  Great 
Britain  and  her  dependencies,  without  assigning,  or  being  able  to  assign 
any  force  to  support  it.  America  appeared  to  concur  with  France  in 
asserting  that  Great  Britain  had  been  the  original  aggressor  on  neutral 
rights,  and  that  the  aggression  consisted  in  the  blockade  of  1806;  the 
objection  to  which  rested  on  the  supposition  that  it  had  not  been  duly 
maintained.  But  it  appeared  from  the  facts  of  the  case,  that  neither 
under  the  objections  urged  by  France,  nor  under  those  stated  by  the 
American  government,  could  that  blockade  be  deemed  contrary  to  the 
law  of  nations.  The  orders  in  council  were  therefore  founded  on  a  just 
principle  of  defensive  retaliation  against  the  violation  of  the  law  of 
nations  by  France  in  the  Berlin  decree ;  and  the  blockade  of  May,  1806, 
was  now  included  in  the  more  extensive  operation  of  the  orders  in 
council.  The  orders  in  council  would  not  be  continued  after  the 
effectual  repeal  of  the  decrees ;  nor  would  the  blockade  of  1806  con- 
tinue after  the  repeal  of  the  orders  in  council,  unless  sustained  by  a 
sufficient  naval  force. 

The  British  minister  insisted  that  the  decrees  had  never  been  repealed. 
The  French  minister's  note  to  Mr.  Armstrong,  dated  the  5th  of  August, 
1810,  was  called  a  "  deceitful  declaration,"  Its  language  was  ambigu- 
ous. It  had,  however,  been  recently  explained  by  the  emperor  himself, 
in  a  speech  to  certain  deputies  from  Hamburg,  Bremen,  and  Lubeck,  in 
which  he  declared  that  "  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  should  be  the 
public  code  of  France,  as  long  as  England  maintained  her  orders  in 
council  of  1806  and  1807."  Certain  official  documents  were  also  re- 
ferred to  as  evidence  that  the  decrees  were  yet  in  force.  It  had  been 
said  that  the  only  two  American  ships  taken  under  the  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees  since  the  1st  of  November,  had  been  restored.  They  might  have 
been  restored  for  some  other  reason  than  that  assigned  ;  for,  having  been 
captured  in  plain  contravention  of  the  supposed  revocation,  why  were 
they  not  restored  immediately,  instead  of  being  detained  in  French  ports, 
and  subjected  to  so  much  difficulty  in  obtaining  a  release  ?  The  fears  of 
the  French  navy,  however,  had  prevented  many  cases  of  the  kind  on  the 
ocean  under  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan ;  but  the  most  obnoxious 
and  destructive  parts  of  those  decrees  were  exercised  with  full  violence, 
not  only  in  the  ports  of  France,  but  in  those  of  all  other  countries  tc 
which  France  thought  she  could  commit  injustice  with  impunity. 


"238  ■  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

To  the  letters  of  Mr.  Foster,  Mr.  Monroe  replied  on  the  23d  of  July. 

The  United  States,  he  said,  were  little  disposed  to  enter  into  the  ques- 
tion concerning  the  priority  of  aggression  by  the  two  belligerents,  as  the 
aggression  of  neither  could  be  justified  by  the  prior  aggression  of  the 
other.  But  as  this  had  been  made  a  plea  in  support  of  the  orders  in 
council,  it  might  be  remarked,  that  the  blockade  had  not  been  maintained 
with  the  requisite  strictness  until  it  was  comprised  in  and  superseded  by 
the  orders  of  November  of  the  following  year,  nor  even  until  the  French 
decree  of  the  same  year.  But  the  orders  in  council  went  even  be3^ond 
the  plea,  in  extending  their  operation  against  the  trade  of  the  United 
States  with  nations  which  had  not  adopted  the  French  decrees.  The 
modification  of  the  orders  permitting  neutrals  to  trade  with  the  continent 
through  Great  Britain,  was  not  viewed  in  a  favorable  light.  The  politi- 
cal pretension  set  up  by  it  was  incompatible  with  the  sovereignty  and  in- 
dependence of  other  states ;  and  as  a  commercial  regulation,  it  was  de- 
structive to  neutral  commerce.  As  an  enemy.  Great  Britain  could  not 
trade  with  France  ;  nor  did  France  permit  a  neutral  to  come  into  her 
ports  from  Great  Britain.  Forcing  our  trade  through  Great  Britain, 
had  therefore  the  effect  of  depriving  us  of  the  market  of  her  enemy  for 
our  productions,  and  of  compelling  their  sale  in  Great  Britain,  where, 
by  a  surcharge  of  the  market,  their  value  was  nearly  destroyed. 

The  United  States  had  observed  the  impartiality  due  to  both  parties 
as  belligerents.  They  had  borne,  with  equal  indulgence,  injuries  from 
both.  The  offers  presented  to  them  by  the  late  acts  of  our  government, 
were  made  equally  to  both.  The  embargo  and  non-intercourse  acts  were 
peaceful  measures.  So  also  was  the  non-importation  act ;  and  the  dis- 
tinction which  it  now  made  between  the  belligerents,  resulted  from  the 
compliance  of  one  with  the  oficr  made  to  both,  and  which  was  still  open 
to  the  compliance  of  the  other.  It  had  been  stated  that  Great  Britain 
would  proceed  pari  passu  with  France  in  the  revocation  of  her  edicts. 
Our  government  maintained  that  France  had  revoked  her  decrees.  Of 
this,  the  announcement  of  Champagny,  the  duke  of  Cadore,  to  Mr.  Arm- 
strong, was  sufficient  evidence.  Two  American  vessels  had  been  detained 
in  French  ports  :  but  they  had  not  been  condemned.  Both  these  vessels 
proceeded  from  a  British  port,  and  had  on  board  some  articles  which 
were  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  France,  or  were  such  as  could  be  admit- 
ted by  the  government  alone.  This  appeared  to  be  the  only  cause  of  the 
detention.  If  the  detention  of  the  vessels  was  owing  to  their  passing 
from  a  British  to  a  French  port,  or  to  the  nature  of  their  cargoes,  it 
afforded  no  cause  of  complaint  to  Great  Britain.  The  right  of  complaint 
belonged  to  the  United  States,  whose  neutral  rights  had  been  violated. 
In  the  speech  of  the  emperor  to  the  deputies  of  the  free  cities  of  Ham- 


DIPLOMATIC    DISCUSSIONS.  239 

burg,  Bremen,  and  Lubeck,  there  was  notliing  to  disprove  the  repeal  of 
the  decrees.  He  declared  that  the  blockade  of  the  British  islands  should 
cease  when  the  British  blockades  should  cease ;  and  that  the  French 
blockade  should  cease  in  favor  of  those  nations  in  whose  favor  Great 
Britain  should  revoke  hers,  or  who  should  support  their  rights  against 
her  pretension,  as  France  admitted  the  United  States  would  do  by  en- 
forcing the  non-importation  act.  Every  communication  received  from 
the  French  government  was  in  accordance  with  the  actual  repeal  of  the 
Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  in  relation  to  the  neutral  commerce  of  the 
United  States.  But  the  best  evidence  of  their  ceasing  to  operate,  was 
the  want  of  evidence  that  they  did  operate. 

It  was  unreasonable  for  Great  Britain  to  require  that  the  commerce 
of  the  continent  should  be  restored  to  the  state  in  which  it  stood  prior 
to  the  date  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  before  she  would  revoke  her 
orders  in  council.  The  laws  of  war  governed  the  relations  of  Great 
Britain  and  France.  The  vessels  of  either  taken  by  the  other,  were  lia- 
ble to  confiscation.  But  even  if  no  war  existed,  the  United  States  could 
not  open  the  continent  to  the  commerce  of  Great  Britain.  They  could 
not  maintain  such  a  claim  in  their  own  favor,  though  neutral ;  and  how 
could  Great  Britain  demand  that  they  should  obtain  the  favor  for  her, 
being  an  enemy  ?  Every  nation  not  restrained  by  treaty,  has  a  right  to 
regulate  its  trade  with  other  nations  as  it  may  deem  most  conducive  to 
its  own  interests. 

It  will  be  recollected  that  Mr.  Monroe,  in  1806,  then  minister  at  Lon- 
don, represented  the  blockade  against  France  as  favorable  to  our  com- 
mercial interests.  Mr.  Foster,  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Mr.  Monroe,  ex- 
pressed his  surprise  that  our  government  should  now  require  the  revoca- 
tion of  this  order  of  blockade  as  a  condition  of  the  renewal  of  intercourse; 
the  motive  to  which  is  insinuated  in  the  following  extract :  "It  was  clearly 
proved  that  the  blockade  of  May,  1806,  was  maintained  by  an  adequate 
naval  force,  and  therefore  was  a  blockade  founded  on  just  and  legitimate 
principles ;  and  I  have  not  heard  that  it  was  considered  in  a  .contrary 
light  when  notified  as  such  to  you  by  secretary  Fox,  nor  until  it  suited 
the  vieius  of  France  to  endeavor  to  have  it  considered  otherwise.  Why 
America  took  up  the  view  the  French  government  chose  to  give  of  it, 
and  could  see  in  it  grounds  for  the  French  decrees,  was  alwa\  s  matter 
of  astonishment  in  England." 

To  which  Mr.  Monroe  replied :  "  A  controversy  had  taken  place  be- 
tween our  governments  on  a  different  topic,  which  was  still  depending. 
The  British  government  had  interfered  with  the  trade  between  France 
and  her  allies  in  the  produce  of  their  colonies.  The  just  claim  of  the 
United  States  was  then  a  subject  of  negotiation ;  and  your  government^ 


240  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

professing  its  willingness  to  make  a  satisfactory  arrangement  of  it,  issued 
the  order  which  allowed  the  trade  without  making  any  concession  as  to 
the  principle,  reserving  that  for  adjustment  by  treaty.  It  was  in  this 
light  that  I  viewed,  and  in  this  sense  that  I  represented  that  order  to 
my  government;  and  in  no  other  did  I  make  any  comment  on  it." 

Much  importance  seems  to  have  been  given  to  the  question  of  the  re- 
vocation of  the  French  decrees.  In  addition  to  the  facts  already  men- 
tioned as  evidence  that  they  were  still  in  force,  another  was,  that  Ameri- 
can vessels  engaged  in  the  trade  with  France,  were  required  to  have 
licenses  from  the  French  consuls  in  the  United  States.  If  the  decrees 
had  been  to  any  extent  repealed,  so  far,  at  least,  no  licenses  should  be 
necessary ;  a  license  being  given  to  allow  what,  but  for  that  license, 
would  be  prohibited.  Besides,  no  instrument  by  which  the  repeal  had 
been  effected,  had  yet  appeared.  If  there  were  fair  dealing  in  the  trans- 
action, no  reason  could  be  given  for  not  producing  it.  It  ought  to  be 
produced  to  show  to  what  extent  the  decrees  had  been  really  repealed. 

To  this  it  was  replied,  that  seizures  might  have  been  made  upon  other 
grounds  than  those  which  had  been  mentioned.  Great  Britain  claimed 
the  right  to  seize  for  other  causes,  and  all  nations  admit  it  in  cases  of 
contraband  of  war.  If,  by  the  law  of  nations,  one  belligerent  has  a  right 
to  seize  neutral  property,  in  any  case,  the  other  belligerent  has  the 
same  right.  Another  cause  might  be  found  in  the  well  known  prac- 
tice in  England  of  furnishing  the  officers  of  her  vessels  with  counterfeit 
papers,  purporting  to  be  American,  under  which  British  vessels  had  ac- 
quired the  benefits  of  neutrality.  It  had  impaired  the  credit  due  to 
American  documents,  and  ceased  to  afford  adequate  protection  to  our 
vessels.  Against  this  practice  our  minister  at  London  had  made  a 
formal  representation,  with  an  offer  of  the  necessary  information  to  de- 
tect and  suppress  it ;  but  the  communication  was  entirely  disregarded. 

The  granting  of  licenses  by  the  French  government  in  certain  in- 
stances, proved  only  that  the  trade  with  France  in  other  instances  was 
under  restraint.  The  object  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  was  not 
to  prohibit  the  trade  between  the  United  States  and  France,  but  the 
trade  of  the  United  States  with  Grreat  Britain,  which  was  a  violation  of 
our  neutral  rights,  and  to  prohibit  the  trade  of  Great  Britain  with  the 
continent, with  which  the  United  States  had  nothing  to  do.  If  the  ob- 
ject of  these  decrees  had  been  to  prohibit  trade  between  the  United  States 
and  France,  Great  Britain  would  have  had  no  cause  of  complaint.  And 
if  the  idea  of  retaliation  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  by  her  measures 
had  been  applicable,  it  would  have  been  by  prohibiting  our  trade  with 
herself  To  prohibit  it  with  France,  would  not  have  been  retaliation 
(like  for  like)  but  a  cooperation. 


niPLOMATIC    DISCUSSIONS.  241 

Could  that  be  really  a  revocation  wliicli  depended  upon  certain  condi- 
tions? It  will  be  recollected,  that  it  was  to  take  effect  the  1st  of  No- 
vember, 1810,  "  it  being  understood^  that,  in  consequence  of  this  declara- 
tion, the  English  shall  revoke  their  orders  in  council,  and  renounce  the 
new  principles  of  blockade  which  they  have  attempted  to  establish ;  or 
that  the  United  States  shall  cause  their  rights  to  be  respected  by  the 
English;"  that  is  to  say,  they  must  cause  Great  Britain  to  relinquish 
her  blockades.  The  French  government  could  scarcely  have  believed 
that  these  conditions  would  have  been  fulfilled.  Doubts  of  a  baiia  fide 
repeal  were  strengthened  by  the  terms  upon  which  the  trade  was  opened. 
Our  vessels  were  required  to  obtain  licenses  from  French  consuls  in  the 
United  States,  with  which  they  might  proceed  to  French  ports  with 
American  produce ;  for  which,  however,  they  must  take  in  exchange 
silks,  wines,  and  other  articles  of  French  manufacture — two-thirds  of  the 
value  of  the  cargo  to  consist  of  silks. 

These  restrictions  upon  our  trade  were  the  subject  of  bitter  complaint 
and  strong  remonstrance  by  our  government.  Jonathan  Kussell,  our 
charge  des  .  affaires,  at  Paris,  (in  the  place  of  Mr.  Armstrong,  return- 
ed,) in  a  letter  to  the  secretary  of  state,  said:  "  The  tendency  of  this  re- 
striction, added  to  the  dangers  of  a  vigilant  blockade,  and  to  the  exac- 
tions of  an  excessive  tariff,  was  to  annihilate  all  commercial  intercourse 
between  the  two  countries."  In  the  same  light  was  the  subject  viewed 
by  Mr.  Monroe,  secretary  of  state.  In  a  letter  of  the  26th  of  July, 
1811,  to  Mr.  Barlow,  then  minister  at  Paris,  he  says:  "  The  president 
expects  that  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  will  be  placed,  in  the 
ports  of  France,  on  such  a  footing  as  to  afford  to  it  a  fair  market.  An 
arrangement  to  this  effect  was  looked  for  immediately  after  the  revoca- 
tion of  the  decrees  ;  but  it  appears  from  the  documents  in  this  depart- 
ment, that  that  was  not  the  case  :  on  the  contrary,  that  our  commerce 
has  been  subjected  to  the  greatest  discouragement,  or  rather  to  the  most 
oppressive  restraints;  that  the  vessels  which  carried  coffee,  sugar,  &c., 
&c.,  though  sailing  directly  from  the  United  States  to  a  French  port, 
were  held  in  a  state  of  sequestration,  on  the  principle  that  the  trade  was 
prohibited,  and  that  the  importation  of  those  articles  was  not  only  un- 
lawful but  criminal ;  that  even  those  vessels  which  carried  the  unques- 
tionable productions  of  the  United  States  were  exposed  to  great  and  ex- 
pensive delays,  to  tedious  investigations  in  unusual  forms,  and  to  exorbi- 
tant duties.  In  short,  that  the  ordinary  usages  of  commerce  between 
friendly  nations  were  abandoned." 

Our  merchants,  Mr.  Monroe  said,  had  considered  themselves  invited 
to  the  ports  of  France  by  the  repeal  of  the  decrees ;  and  the  vexations 
and  losses  to  which  they  had  been  unexpectedly  subjected,  were  not  only 

16 


242  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

unjust  to  them,  but  disrespectful  to  our  government.  If  the  ports  of 
France  and  her  allies  were  not  Opened  to  our  commerce,  on  fair  condi- 
tions, the  revocation  of  the  British  orders  would  be  of  no  avail.  He 
complained  also  of  the  injustice  of  compelling  our  merchants  to  bring  in 
return  for  their  cargoes  an  equal  amount  in  the  produce  or  manufactures 
of  that  country,  while  French  merchants  enjoyed  the  liberty  of  selling 
their  cargoes  here  for  cash,  and  taking  in  return  what  they  pleased.  The 
system  of  carrying  on  the  trade  by  licenses  granted  by  French  agents, 
ouo-ht  to  be  annulled,  and  Mr.  Barlow  was  instructed  to  tell  the  French 
government  that  the  United  States  could  not  submit  to  it ;  and  that  if 
the  consuls  did  npt  discontinue  it,  the  president  might  find  it  necessary 
to  revoke  their  exequaturs. 

Mr.  Monroe  also  reprehended  the  "  unjustifiable  aggression  on  the 
rights  of  the  United  States  "  by  the  French  decrees,  especially  the  Ram- 
bouillet  decree,  of  March,  1810,  which  "made  a  sweep  of  all  American 
property  within  the  reach  of  the  French  power.  *  *  *  Jq  Spain, 
Holland,  and  Naples,  it  has  been  most  sensibly  felt.  In  each  of  those 
countries,  the  vessels  and  cargoes  of  American  merchants  were  seized 
and  confiscated  under  various  decrees  founded 'in  different  pretexts,  none 
of  which  had  even  the  semblance  of  right  to  support  them."  And  he 
mentions  as  the  most  atrocious  of  all  the  reprehensible  acts  of  that  gov- 
ernment and  its  subjects,  the  burning  of  the  vessels  of  our  citizens  at  sea. 

The  annoyances  to  our  commerce  mentioned  in  the  first  of  these  ex- 
tracts from  Mr.  Monroe's  letter,  were  by  many  deemed  inconsistent  with 
a  sincere  revocation  of  the  decrees;  and, in  connection  with  the  fact  that 
the  repeal  was  never  formally  announced,  were  regarded  by  many  as  con- 
clusive evidence  that  it  was  a  mere  pretense.  In  view  of  the  outrages 
recited  in  the  latter  of  these  extracts,  and  which  had  been  perpetrated 
long  prior  to  the  pretended  repeal  of  the  decrees,  and  for  which  no 
promise  of  compensation  had  been  made,  the  inquiry  naturally  arises,' 
whether  the  proclamation  of  president  Madison,  immediately  suspending 
the  non-intercourse  law  in  regard  to  France,  wae  not  premature.  It 
was  the  more  mild  and  conciliatory  policy  pursued  toward  that  country 
than  toward  Great  Britain,  and  the  greater  apparent  readiness  to  com- 
ply with  her  wishes,  that  furnished  the  principal  ground  of  opposition  to 
the  administration  during  this  long  controversy.  Insisting  on  the  re- 
linquishment of  the  British  blockade,  which  was  regarded  as  "  highly 
satisfactory"  before  such  relinquishment  was  made  by  Bonaparte  a  con- 
dition of  the  revocation  of  his  decrees,  and  demanding  the  unconditional 
removal  of  this  blockade  as  an  obligation  imposed  by  the  conditional  and 
doubtful  repeal  of  those  decrees,  gave  occasion  for  nine-tenths  of  the  op- 
position. 


SMITHES    EXPOSE.  243 

A  review  of  tlie  entire  history  of  this  commercial  warfare,  justifies  the 
conclusion,  that  neither  Great  Britain  nor  France  avowed  her  real  de- 
signs ;  that  the  British  orders  in  council,  instead  of  being  intended  as 
measures  of  retaliation  against  her  enemy,  their  real  object  was  to  force 
a  trade  to  France  and  the  continent,  generally  through  British  ports, 
where  a  transit  duty  was  levied  for  the  British  treasury.  They  were  in 
fact  spoken  of  by  a  leading  member  of  parliament  as  "  a  system  of  self- 
defense,  to  prevent  the  commerce  of  America  from  coming  into  competi- 
tion with  the  commerce  of  England,"  Trade  with  all  the  world,  even 
with  her  enemies,  seems  to  have  been  her  object ;  and  she  wished  to  make 
our  government  the  instrument  of  forcing  France  to  receive  her  manu- 
factures. Such  an  opinion  is  at  least  plausible,  ^  Niles  said  with  some 
truth :  "  If  Bonaparte  were  to  grant  a  license  for  the  purpose,  certain 
London  merchants  could  obtain  leave  to  supply  him  even  with  arms  and 
ammunition — so  zealous  are  they  for  a  trade  with  an  enemy  !  The 
least  relaxation  of  his  '  continental  system  '  is  hailed  with  exultation  and 
joy.  They  gladly  send  him  what  he  pleases  to  admit,  and  accept  in  re- 
turn almost  anything  he  pleases  to  give  them.  This  has  been  the  prac- 
tice for  years ;  and  yet  some  have  said  the  orders  in  council  were  *  re- 
taliatory '  on  the  French  decrees." 

Equally  manifest  is  it,  from  the  reprehensible  policy  of  France,  in 
connection  with  the  facts  disclosed  in  the  foregoing  letters  and  docu- 
ments, and  the  indispensable  conditions  of  the  repeal  of  her  decrees,  viz., 
that  v/e  should  compel  Great  Britain  to  repeal  her  orders  in  council, 
that  the  object  of  Franco  was  to  force  us  into  a  quarrel  with  her  enemy, 
or,  what  is  tantamount,  into  an  alliance  with  herself. 

In  1811,  Robert  Smith,  secretary  of  state,  in  consequence  of  a  dis- 
agreement between  himself  and  the  president  on  the  subject  of  the  repeal 
of  the  French  decrees,  and  the  consequent  measures  of  the  government, 
resigned  his  ofiice,  and  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Monroe.  In  an  address 
to  the  public,  giving  the  reasons  for  his  resignation,  are  statements  which 
may  aid  in  forming  an  opinion  as  to  the  expediency  of  the  policy  of  the 
administration.  Mr.  Smith,  as  will  be  seen,  considered  the  decrees  of 
France  as  not  actually  repealed,  and,  of  course,  the  proclamation  of  the 
president,  removing  the  non-intercourse  with  France,  and  the  law  of 
March  2,  1811,  reenacting  it  against  Great  Britain,  as  unwarranted  by 
facts. 

Mr.  Smith  imputed  to  the  president  improper  motives  in  procuring 
the  passage  of  the  non-intercourse  act.  Congress  had  considered  his 
proclamation  and  the  message  recommending  the  enforcement  of  the  act 
of  May,  1810,  as  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  repeal  of  the  French 
decrees.     And  Mr.  S.  notes  it  as  a  significant  fact  that  the  act  was 


244  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

passed  after  the  arrival  of  the  new  French  minister.  He  also  notices 
the  letters  from  the  state  department,  of  June  and  July,  1810,  contain- 
ing the  protestation  which  was  communicated  to  the  French  government 
that  "  a  satisfactory  provision  for  restoring  the  property  lately  surprised 
and  seized  by  the  order,  or  at  the  instance  of  the  French  government, 
must  be  combined  with  a  repeal  of  the  French  edicts,  with  a  view  to  non- 
intercourse  with  Great  Britain  ;"  yet,  before  the  passage  of  the  act,  the 
French  minister,  Serrurier,  had  officially  communicated  to  our  govern- 
ment the  fixed  determination  of  the  government  of  France  not  to  restore 
the  property  that  had  been  so  seized.  "  Moreover,"  adds  Mr.  Smith, 
"  from  the  information  which  had  been  received  by  Mr.  Madison,  prior 
to  the  date  of  the  non-intercourse  law,  it  was,  at  the  time  of  passing  it, 
clear  to  my  mind,  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had  not  been 
revoked,  as  had  been  declared  by  the  proclamation." 

Then  follows  a  copy  of  the  draft  of  a  letter  prepared  (June,  1810)  by 
Mr.  S.,  to  be  sent  to  G-eneral  Armstrong,  after  a  letter  had  been  received 
of  the  duke  of  Cadore,  justifying  the  seizure  of  American  property  in  the 
ports  of  France  and  her  allies.  This  letter  expressed  the  surprise  of  the 
president  at  the  "  disposition  to  represent  the  United  States  as  the  ori- 
ginal aggressor."  It  considered  the  seizure  of  American  property  as 
"  an  act  of  violence  scarcely  less  than  an  act  of  war,"  for  which  the 
duke's  letter  "  had  not  furnished  even  a  plausible  palliation  or  a  reason- 
able apology."  To  construe  our  resistance  to  the  unlawful  restrictions 
upon  our  commerce  by  France  into  "  a  cause  of  warlike  reprisal,"  he 
called  "  a  species  of  dictation."  The  French  decrees,  the  letter  said, 
"  had  assumed  a  prescriptive  power  over  the  policy  of  the  United  States, 
as  reprehensible  as  the  attempt  of  the  British  government  to  levy  con- 
tributions on  our  trade  was  obnoxious.  *  *  *  Had  France  inter- 
dicted to  our  vessels  all  the  ports  within  the  sphere  of  her  influence,  and 
had  she  given  a  warning  of  equal  duration  with  that  given  by  our  law, 
there  would  have  been  no  cause  of  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States.  The  French  government  would  not  then  have  had  the  oppor- 
tunity of  exercising  its  power  in  a  manner  as  contrary  to  the  forms  as 
to  the  spirit  of  justice,  over  the  property  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States." 

The  letter  says  farther  :  "  Let  him  withdraw  or  modify  his  decrees  \ 
let  him  restore  the  property  of  our  citizens  so  unjustly  seized,  and  a  law 
of  the  United  States  exists  which  authorizes  the  president  to  promote  the 
best  possible  understanding  with  France,  and  to  impose  a  system  of  ex- 
clusion against  the  ships  and  merchandise  of  Grreat  Britain  in  the  event 
of  her  failing  to  conform  to  the  same  just  terms  of  conciliation." 

Mr.  Smith  expressed  to   Mr.  Madison   his  apprehensions   that  the 


SMITH  S    EXPOSE.  245 

emperor  would  not  fulfill  our  just  expectations.  But  Mr.  M.  was  confi- 
dent that  the  decrees  would  bona  jide  cease  on  the  1st  of  November, 
1810,  and  our  commercial  relations  with  France  be  encumbered  with  no 
embarrassments  whatever.  Mr.  S.  told  him  he  would  converse  with 
Turreau  (the  French  minister)  on  the  subject.  In  the  subsequent  cor- 
respondence, he  says  he  "  was  greatly  checked  by  the  evident  indications 
of  utter  indifference  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Madison.  Instead  of  encouraging 
he  absolutely  discouraged  the  making  of  any  animadversions  upon  Tur- 
reau's  letter  of  December  12,  1810."  The  letter  of  Mr.  S.  was  prepared 
after  the  receipt  of  a  letter  from  the  French  minister  of  foreign  affiiirs 
to  our  minister  at  Paris,  in  which  the  former  had  said :  "  The  Americana 
can  not  hesitate  as  to  the  part  which  they  are  to  take.  They  ought 
either  to  tear  to  pieces  the  act  of  their  independence,  and  so  become 
again,  as  before  the  revolution,  the  subjects  of  England.  *  *  *  Men 
without  just  political  views,  without  honor,  without  energy,  may  allege 
that  payment  of  the  tribute  imposed  by  England  may  be  submitted  to 
because  it  is  light.  *  *  *  Jt  will  then  be  necessary  to  fight  for 
interest,  after  having  refused  to  fight  for  honor," 

Notwithstanding  this  disrespectful  and  offensive  language,  and  the 
outrages  upon  our  neutral  rights,  Mr.  Madison  objected  to  the  letter  of 
Mr.  Smith  on  account  of  its  severity,  and  instead  of  the  animadversions  it 
contained,  he  directed  the  insertion  of  simply  the  following  :  "As  the  John 
Adams  is  daily  expected,  and  as  your  further  communications  by  her 
will  better  enable  me  to  adapt  to  the  actual  state  of  our  affairs  of  the 
French  government,  the  observations  proper  to  be  made  in  relation  to 
their  seizure  of  our  property,  and  to  the  letter  of  the  duke  of  Cadore  of 
the  14th  of  February,  it  is  by  the  president  deemed  expedient  not  to 
make  at  this  time  any  such  animadversions.  I  can  not,  however,  forbear 
informing  you^  that  a  high  indignation  is  felt  by  the  president,  as  well 
as  by  the  public,  at  this  act  of  violence  on  our  property,  and  at  the  out- 
rage, both  in  the  language  and  in  the  matter,  of  the  letter  of  the  duke  of 
Cadore,  so  justly  portrayed  in  your  note  to  him  of  the  10th  of  March." 
Mr.  Smith  calls  attention  to  the  fact,  that  the  last  sentence  was  addressed 
to  Gen.  Armstrong  'personally^  and  not  intended  for  the  French  govern- 
ment ;  showing,  he  says,  "  that  our  executive  had  at  that  time,  but  just 
resolution  enough  to  impart  to  his  own  minister  the  sentiments  of  indigna- 
tion that  had  been  here  excited  by  the  enormous  outrage  of  the  Rambouil- 
let  decree,  and  by  the  insulting  audacity  of  the  duke  of  Cadore's  letter." 

Congress,  Mr.  S.  said,  had  been,  during  the  preceding  session,  embar- 
rassed as  to  the  course  to  be  taken  with  respect  to  our  foreign  relations, 
from  the  defect  in  the  communications  to  them  as  to  the  views  of  the 
emperor.     And  when  the  arrival  of  Serrurier,  the  French  envoy,  was 


246  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

announced;  congress  suspended  proceedings  touching  our  foreign  rela- 
tions, in  order  to  avail  themselves  of  information  from  France  since 
the  1st  of  November,  the  day  fixed  for  the  repeal  of  the  decrees  to  take 
effect.  Mr.  Smith,  to  relieve  the  impatience  of  congress,  prepared  a 
letter  to  Serrurier,  proposing  the  following  questions : 

''  1st.  Were  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  revoked,  in  whole  or  in 
part,  on  the  first  day  of  last  November  ?  Or  have  they  at  any  time 
posterior  to  that  day  been  so  revoked  ?  Or  have  you  instructions  from 
your  government  to  give  this  government  any  assurance  or  explanation 
in  relation  to  the  revocation  or  modification  of  those  decrees  ? 

"  2d.  Do  the  existing  decrees  of  France  admit  into  French  ports,  with 
or  without  licenses,  American  vessels  laden  with  articles  the  produce  of 
the  United  States,  and  under  what  regulations  and  conditions  ? 

"  3d.  Do  they  admit  into  French  ports,  with  or  without  licenses, 
American  vessels  laden  with  articles  not  the  produce  of  the  United 
States,  and  under  what  regulations  and  conditions  ? 

"  4th.  Do  they  permit  American  vessels,  with  or  without  licenses,  to 
return  from  France  to  the  United  States,  and  upon  what  terms  and  con- 
ditions ? 

"  5th.  Is  the  importatian  into  France  of  any  articles,  the  produce  af 
the  United  States,  absolutely  prohibited?  And  if  so,  what  are  the 
articles  so  prohibited  ?  and  especially  are  tobacco  and  cotton  ? 

"  6th.  Have  you  instructions  from  your  government  to  give  to  this 
government  any  assurance  or  explanation  in  relation  to  the  American 
vessels  and  cargoes  seized  under  the  Kambouillet  decree  ?" 

The  sending  of  this  letter,  however,  was  interdicted  by  the  president, 
as  being  in  his  opinion  inexpedient.  This  refusal  of  the  president  to 
permit  these  inquiries  to  be  made,  when  the  revocation  of  the  decrees 
was  so  much  questioned,  and  when  congress  was  so  desirous  for  informa- 
tion, was  pronounced  by  his  opponents  to  have  been  dictated  either  by 
a  fear  of  Bonaparte,  or  by  an  undue  regard  for  the  French  nation. 

Before  the  arrival  of  Serrurier,  and  in  anticipation  of  the  expiration 
of  the  three  months  from  the  1st  of  November,  allowed  to  Grreat  Britain 
by  the  conditional  non-importation  law  of  May,  1810,  a  bill  was  intro- 
duced into  the  house  to  revive,  as  to  Great  Britain,  the  non-importation 
provisions  of  the  acts  of  1809  and  1810.  Action  upon  the  bill  had  for 
some  days  been  suspended  for  information  daily  expected  by  the  new 
minister  from  France,,  when  a  motion  was  made  to  take  up  the  bill  for 
the  purpose  of  adding  a  provision  against  the  forfeiture  of  goods  already 
shipped  and  arriving  from  British  ports  after  the  2d  of  March,  as  it  was 
presumed  that  goods  had  been  ordered,  and  shipped  before  the  president's 
proclamation  was  known.     A  proposition  was  made  by  Mr.  Randolph  to 


THE    TWELFTH    CONGRESS.  247 

relinquish  the  whole  restrictive  system.  To  which  it  was  objected,  that 
our  pledges  to  France  required  its  continuance.  Notwithstanding  it  was 
known  that  two  vessels  had  been  seized  under  the  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees  since  the  1st  of  November,  and  notwithstanding  Serrurier  came 
before  the  passage  of  the  bill,  without  instructions  to  make  any  explana- 
tions of  the  seizures,  but  with  instructions  to  refuse  indemnity  for 
seizures  under  the  Bayonne  and  Rambouillet  decrees  ;  the  bill  was  passed. 


CHAPTER  XYII. 

TWELFTH      CONGRESS. BRITISH      PLOT. THE     WAR      QUESTION     IN      CON- 
GRESS.  DECLARATION    OF    WAR. 

The  12th  congress,  having  been  convened  by  proclamation  before 
the  regular  day  of  meeting,  commenced  its  session  the  4th  of  November, 
1811.  The  principal  topics  of  the  president's  message  were  those  of  our 
relations  with  Great  Britain  and  France  and  of  the  public  defense. 
Although  he  spoke  of  the  French  decrees  as  having  been  repealed,  he 
complained  that  the  measure  had  not  been  followed  by  such  others  as 
were  due  to  our  reasonable  claims  and  the  amicable  professions  of  the 
French  government ;  but  no  proof  had  jGi  been  given  of  an  intention 
to  repair  the  other  wrongs  done  to  the  United  States,  and  particularly 
to  restore  the  great  amount  of  American  property  seized  and  condemned 
under  her  edicts.  The  United  States  had  also  much  reason  to  be  dis- 
satisfied with  the  rigorous  and  unexpected  restrictions  to  which  their 
trade  with  the  French  dominions  had  been  subjected,  and  which,  if  not 
discontinued,  would  require  at  least  corresponding  restrictions  on  impor- 
tations from  France. 

Great  Britain  was  complained  of  for  persisting  in  her  refusal  to  revoke 
her  orders  in  council  "  after  the  successive  confirmations  of  the  extinc- 
tion of  the  French  decrees,  so  far  as  they  violated  our  neutral  com- 
merce." The  orders  had  been,  ''when  least  to  have  been  expected,  put 
into  more  rigorous  execution;"  and  it  had  been  "  communicated  through 
the  British  envoy  just  arrived,  that  while  the  revocation  of  the  edicts  of 
France,  as  officially  made  known  to  the  British  government,  was  denied 
to  have  taken  place,  it  was  an  indispensable  condition  of  the  repeal  of 
the  British  orders,  that  commerce  should  be  restored  to  a  footing  that 
would  admit  the  productions  and  manufactures   of  Great  Britain,  when 


248  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

owned  by  neutrals,  into  markets  shut  against  them  by  her  enemy ;  the 
United  States  being  given  to  understand,  that,  in  the  mean  time,  a  con- 
tinuance of  their  non-importation  act  would  lead  to  measures  of  retalia- 
tion." 

On  the  subject  of  defense,  the  president  said  "  the  period  had  arrived 
which  claimed  from  the  legislative  guardians  of  the  national  rights  a 
system  of  more  ample  provision  for  maintaining  them."  And  he  con- 
sidered it  the  duty  of  congress  "  to  put  the  United  States  into  an  armor 
and  an  attitude  demanded  by  the  crisis,  and  corresponding  with  the 
national  spirit  and  expectations." 

On  the  9th  of  March,  1812,  the  president  communicated  to  congress 
certain  documents  disclosing  a  secret  plot,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 
to  dismember  the  union,  and  to  form  the  eastern  states  into  a  political 
connection  with  Great  Britain. 

In  the  winter  of  1809,  John  Henry  was  employed  by  Sir  James  H. 
Craig,  late  governor-general  of  Canada,  to  undertake  a  secret  mission  to 
the  United  States  with  a  view  to  this  object.  He  was  directed  to  pro- 
ceed to  Boston,  from  which  place  he  was  to  keep  governor  Craig  informed 
of  "  the  state  of  public  opinion  with  regard  to  their  internal  politics, 
and  to  the  probability  of  a  war  with  England ;  the  comparative  strength 
of  the  two  great  parties  into  which  the  country  was  divided ;  and  the 
views  and  designs  of  that  which  might  ultimately  prevail."  It  was 
hoped,  if  the  federalists  should  obtain  suiB&cient  influence  to  direct  public 
opinion,  they  would,  rather  than  submit  to  the  continuance  of  the  difla- 
culties  and  distress  to  which  they  were  then  subject,  exert  their  influence 
to  bring  about  a  separation  from  the  general  union. 

Henry  was  advised  not  to  appear  as  an  avowed  agent ;  but  if  he  could 
obtain  an  intimacy  with  any  of  the  leading  men,  he  might  insinuate, 
though  with  great  caution,  that  if  they  should  wish  to  enter  into  any 
communication  with  the  British  government,  he  might  receive  it  and 
transmit  it  to  him  (Craig.)  Henry  proceeded  through  Vermont  and 
New  Hampshire  to  Boston,  from  which  place  most  of  his  letters  to  Craig 
and  his  secretary,  Ryland,  were  written.  Having  "suggested  in  his  last 
letter  from  this  place,  that,  "  in  the  present  state  of  things  in  this  coun- 
try, his  presence  could  contribute  very  little  to  the  interest  of  Great 
Britain,"  he  was  recalled.  It  does  not  appear  that  Henry  had  conver- 
sation with  any  person  in  this  country  on  the  object  of  his  mission. 

As  a  compensation  for  his  services,  Craig  had  promised  him  an  office 
worth  a  thousand  pounds  a  year.  The  office  not  having  been  received, 
and  a  memorial  to  the  British  government  on  the  subject  having  failed 
of  securing  relief,  he  made  a  disclosure  of  the  plot  to  Mr.  Monroe, 
secretary  of  state,  for  which  the  president  paid  him  out  of  the  secret 


BRITISH    PLOT.  249 

service  fund,  $50,000.  Henry's  letter  of  disclosure  to  Mr.  Monroe  was 
dated  the  20th  of  February,  1812,  at  Philadelphia,  he  having  been  at 
Washington  and  received  his  money.  Mr.  Madison  did  not  communi- 
cate the  disclosures  to  congress  till  the  9th  of  March,  after  Henry  had 
sailed  for  Europe. 

In  the  British  parliament,  on  the  5th  of  May,  lord  Holland  moved 
an  address  to  the  prince  regent  for  the  production  of  all  the  correspond- 
ence between  Sir  James  Craig  and  the  British  government,  relating  to 
the  employment  of  Henry.  In  the  debate  on  this  motion,  some  of  the 
lords  vindicated  the  conduct  of  Craig,  who,  when  he  had  heard  that  the 
points  in  controversy  between  the  two  governments  had  been  adjusted 
by  Mr.  Madison  and  Mr.  Erskine,  recalled  Henry ;  which  proved  that 
his  instructions  had  been  given  in  contemplation  of  hostilities  between 
the  two  countries.  Others  reprobated,  as  dishonorable,  the  endeavor  to 
seduce  American  subjects  from  their  allegiance  to  their  own  country, 
while  the  two  governments  were  employed  in  amicable  negotiation  for 
peace.  They  thought  the  honor  of  their  country,  and  satisfaction  to  the 
American  government,  required  an  absolute  denial  on  the  part  of  minis- 
ters, or  a  condemnation  of  the  measure  by  parliament.  It  does  not 
appear  from  this  debate,  that  the  scheme  was  known  by  the  British  gov- 
ernment, until  after  Henry's  return  from  the  United  States.  The 
excitement  produced  by  these  disclosures  soon  subsided. 

At  an  early  period  of  the  session,  November  29,  1811,  the  committee 
on  foreign  relations,  Peter  B.  Porter,  of  New  York,  chairman,  made  a 
report  stating  that  France  had  repealed  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees, 
so  far  as  concerned  the  United  States;  and  that  Great  Britain,  "  instead 
of  retracting  that  unjustifiable  attack  on  neutral  rights,  in  which  she 
professed  to  be  only  the  reluctant  follower  of  France,  had  advanced 
with  bolder  and  continually  advancing  strides,  demanding  as  a  condition 
of  her  revoking  her  orders,  that  France  and  her  allies  should  admit 
into  their  territories  the  products  and  manufactures  of  Great  Britain." 
The  committee  reported  resolutions  recommending  the  increase  of  the 
military  force ;  the  fitting  up  of  the  vessels  belonging  to  the  navy  and 
worthy  of  repair ;  and  allowing  merchant  vessels  to  arm  in  self-defense. 
After  considerable  debate,  in  which  Mr.  Randolph  took  a  prominent 
part  against  the  resolutions,  they  were  all  adopted,  December  19. 

The  debates  on  the  bill  carrying  these  resolutions  into  effect  indicated 
the  existence  of  strong  parties  in  both  houses  in  favor  of  war,  although 
it  is  doubtful  whether  war  was  thus  early  intended  by  the  administra- 
tion. Certain  it  is,  that  there  were  many  republicans  who  considered 
that  a  war  at  that  time  would  be  premature.  Indeed,  such  was  the 
reluctance  of  Mr.  Madison  to  engage  in  a  war — with  whom  Mr.  Galla- 


250  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tin,  secretary  of  the  treasury,  concurred — that  the  congressional  caucus 
to  nominate  a  candidate  for  president  at  the  approaching  election,  was 
for  a  time  delayed,  as  the  war  party  was  unwilling  to  support  him  unless 
he  should  determine  to  go  for  war.  Mr.  Monroe  was  preferred  by  the 
most  zealous  friends  of  the  war.  In  New  York  the  war  party  was  in 
favor  of  De  Witt  Clinton,  who,  notwithstanding  the  nomination  of  Mr. 
Madison,  was  subsequently  nominated  by  the  republican  members  of  the 
legislature  of  that  state. 

The  1st  of  April,  1812,  the  president  sent  to  congress  a  confidential 
message,  recommending  the  immediate  passage  of  an  act  laying  a  general 
embargo,  for  sixty  days,  on  all  vessels  in  port,  and  thereafter  arriving. 
A  bill  for  that  purpose  was  forthwith  introduced  by  Mr.  Calhoun.  In 
the  course  of  the  debate  it  was  declared  by  Mr.  Grundy  and  Mr.  Clay, 
both  ardent  supporters  of  the  bill,  to  be  a  preliminary  war  measure. 
The  bill  was  passed  the  same  day.  It  was  amended  in  the  senate  so  as 
to  extend  the  period  of  its  operation  to  ninety  days ;  the  amendment 
was  concurred  in  by  the  house ;  and  the  bill  was  approved  by  the  presi- 
dent on  the  4th.  This  act  was  succeeded,  on  the  8th,  by  an  act  to  in- 
crease the  military  force  ;  on  the  10th,  by  another  authorizing  a  detach- 
ment of  100,000  men  from  the  militia  of  the  United  States;  and  on 
the  14th,  by  an  act  to  prohibit  the  exportation  of  gpecie  or  goods  during 
the  existence  of  the  embargo. 

On  the  18th  of  May,  the  republican  caucus  was  held.  It  was 
attended  by  17  senators  and  65  representatives.  Mr.  Madison  having 
consented  to  recommend  war,  received  the  nomination  unanimously. 
For  vice-president,  John  Langdon  of  New  Hampshire  received  64  votes, 
and  was  nominated.  He,  however,  declined  the  nomination  on  account 
of  age  and  infirmity ;  and  Elbridge  Gerry,  of  Massachusetts,  who  had 
received  sixteen  votes  in  the  caucus,  was  afterward  substituted.  A  few 
days  after  the  congressional  nomination,  De  Witt  Clinton  was  nominated 
by  the  republican  members  of  the  legislature  of  New  York. 

About  the  last  of  May,  dispatches  arrived  from  Mr.  Barlow,  our 
minister  at  Paris.  Nothing  definite  had  been  accomplished  by  him. 
There  was,  however,  some  prospect,  so  he  wrote,  of  the  conclusion  of  a 
treaty  of  commerce,  on  principles  of  reciprocity;  although  a  letter 
from  him  to  the  Duke  of  Bassano  of  some  six  weeks'  later  date  (March 
12,  1812),  calling  his  attention  to  a  case  of  plundering  and  burning  an 
American  vessel,  complained  that  he  was  "  obliged  so  frequently  to  call 
the  attention  of  his  excellency  to  such  lawless  depredations."  In  one 
of  his  letters  to  the  secretary  of  state,  he  said  Mr.  Russell  (at  London) 
had  written  him  again  for  additional  proofs  of  the  repeal  of  the  decrees; 
and  he  had  sent  him  a  list  of  vessels  which  had  been  restored  by  the 


THE    WAR    QUESTION    IN    CONGRESS.  251 

emperor.  No  encouragement  had  been  given  of  indemnity  for  French 
spoliations  on  our  commerce. 

On  the  1st  of  June,  1812,  the  president  sent  to  both  houses  of  con- 
gress a  confidential  message  recommending  war  with  Great  Britain.  In 
setting  forth  the  grounds  or  causes  of  war,  the  impressment  of  our  sea- 
men was  first  mentioned.  Persons  sailing  under  the  American  flag  had 
been  seized  and  carried  off,  not  in  the  exercise  of  a  belligerent  right 
founded  on  the  law  of  nations  against  an  enemy,  but  of  a  municipal 
prerogative  over  British  subjects.  Under  the  pretext  of  searching  our 
vessels  for  her  own  subjects,  thousands  of  American  citizens  had  been 
taken,  and  forced  to  serve  on  British  ships  of  war. 

British  cruisers,  said  the  message,  had  also  violated  the  rights  and 
peace  of  our  coasts.  They  hovered  over  and  harassed  our  entering  and 
departing  commerce,  and  had  wantonly  spilled  American  blood  within 
our  own  territorial  jurisdiction.  Our  commerce  had  also  been  plun- 
dered under  her  pretended  blockades,  in  the  face  of  the  definition,  by  her 
own  government,  of  a  legal  blockade  ;  viz.,  that  "particular  ports  must 
be  actually  invested,  and  previous  warning  given  to  vessels  bound  to 
them  not  to  enter."  Next  came  the  sweeping  system  of  blockades 
under  the  name  of  orders  in  council,  which  had  been  moulded  and  man- 
aged to  suit  her  political  views,  her  commercial  interests,  and  the 
avidity  of  British  cruisers.  Our  remonstrances  against  the  injustice 
of  this  innovation  were  met  with  the  reply,  that  these  orders  had  been 
reluctantly  adopted  as  a  necessary  retaliation  on  the  decrees  of  her 
enemy,  which  proclaimed  a  general  blockade  of  the  British  isles,  at  a 
time  when  the  force  of  that  enemy  dared  not  issue  from  his  own  ports. 
Great  Britain  had  been  reminded  that  her  own  prior  unsupported  block- 
ades were  a  bar  to  this  plea.  And  when  the  ground  of  this  plea  had 
been  removed  by  the  repeal  of  the  decrees  of  her  enemy  prohibiting 
our  trade  with  Great  Britain,  instead  of  a  corresponding  repeal  of  her 
orders,  had  avowed  the  determination  to  persist  in  them  until  the  mar- 
kets of  her  enemy  should  be  opened  to  her  products.  And  farther,  she 
required,  as  a  prerequisite  to  the  repeal  of  her  orders,  a  needless  for- 
mality (an  official  publication  or  promulgation)  to  be  observed  in  the 
repeal  of  the  French  decrees,  and  the  extension  of  the  repeal  to  other 
neutral  nations.  Thus  it  had  become  sufficiently  certain,  that  the  com- 
merce of  the  United  States  was  to  be  sacrificed,  as  interfering  with  a 
monopoly  which  Great  Britain  coveted  for  her  own  commerce  and  navi- 
gation. She  carried  on  a  war  against  the  lawful  commerce  of  a  friend, 
that  she  might  the  better  carry  on  a  commerce  with  an  enemy — a  com- 
merce polluted  by  the  forgeries  and  perjuries  which  were  for  the  most 


252  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

part  the  only  passports  by  wliich  it  could  succeed ;  (alluding  to  the 
forged  papers  granted  to  vessels  under  the  American  name.)  ^ 

The  president  adverted  to  the  arrangement  made  with  Mr.  Erskine, 
the  British  minister  at  Washington,  in  1809.  Had  not  the  British 
government  disavowed  the  act  of  its  minister,  a  lasting  reconciliation 
would  probably  have  been  effected.  He  considered  that  there  was  on 
the  side  of  Great  Britain  a  state  of  war  against  the  United  States,  and 
on  the  side  of  the  United  States,  a  state  of  peace  toward  Great  Britain. 
Had  Great  Britain  revoked  her  blockades  and  orders,  the  way  would 
have  been  opened  for  a  general  repeal  of  the  belligerent  edicts ;  and  if 
France  had  refused  to  repeal  her  decrees,  the  United  States  would  have 
been  justified  in  turning  their  measures  exclusively  against  France. 

The  president  also  expressed  the  opinion,  that  the  recent  renewal  of 
hostilities  by  the  north-western  Indians  had  been  instigated  by  British 
influence. 

Two  days  after  the  receipt  of  this  message,  the  committee  on  foreign 
relations,  through  Mr.  Calhoun,  made  a  report  to  the  house  in  favor  of 
war.  This  report  gave  a  review  of  the  controversy,  declaring  the  British 
blockade  of  May,  1806,  to  be  the  first  aggression  on  our  commerce ;  and 
the  first  on  the  part  of  France  was  the  decree  of  Berlin  of  November 
21st,  1806.  It  embraced  the  same  points  as  the  message,  to  which  it 
may  be  considered  as  an  affirmative  response. 

At  the  time  of  the  communication  of  the  message,  and  of  the  prepara- 
tion and  presentation  of  the  report,  as  also  the  proceedings  on  the  bill 
reported  by  the  committee  declaring  war,  all  of  which  was  done  with 
closed  doors,  a  correspondence  was  going  on  between  Mr.  Foster  and 
Mr.  Monroe.  With  his  letter  of  the  30th  of  May,  Mr.  Foster  commu- 
nicated a  copy  of  a  report  of  the  French  minister  of  foreign  relations  to 
king  Napoleon,  communicated  to  the  conservative  senate,  at  the  sitting 
of  March  10,  1812,  and  which  Mr.  F.  considered  as  confirming  the  as- 
sertions of  his  government,  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had  never 
been  revoked.  The  doctrines  asserted  in  that  report  were  pronounced 
repugnant  to  the  law  of  nations.     They  were  as  follows  : 

"  The  maritime  rights  of  neutrals  have  been,  solemnly  regulated  by 
the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  which  has  become  the  common  law  of  nations ; 
having  been  expressly  renewed  in  all  the  subsequent  treaties  between  the 
maritime  powers. 

"  The  flag  covers  the  property.  Enemy's  property  under  a  neutral 
flag,  is  neutral ;  as  neutral  property  under  an  enemy's  flag  is  enemy's 
property.  The  only  articles  which  the  flag  does  not  cover,  are  contra- 
band articles ;  and  the  only  articles  which  are  contraband,  are  arms  and 
munitions  of  war. 


THE    WAR.    QUESTION    IN    CONGRESS.  253 

"  A  visit  of  a  neutral  vessel  by  an  armed  vessel  can  only  be  made  by 
a  small  number  of  nien,  the  armed  vessel  keeping  beyond  the  reach  of 
cannon-shot. 

"  Every  neutral  vessel  may  trade  from  an  enemy's  port  to  an  enemy's 
port,  and  from  an  enemy's  port  to  a  neutral  port.  The  only  ports  ex- 
cepted are  those  really  blockaded ;  and  the  ports  really  blockaded  are 
those  which  are  invested,  besieged,  and  in  danger  of  being  taken,  and 
into  which  a  merchant  ship  could  not  enter  without  danger." 

This  report  also  declared  that  the  Milan  decree  denationalized  every 
vessel  which  had  submitted  to  English  legislation,  known  to  have 
touched  at  an  English  port,  known  to  have  paid  a  tribute  to  England, 
and  which  had  thereby  renounced  the  independence  and  the  rights  of  its 
flag.  All  the  merchandise  of  the  commerce  and  of  the  industr}'  of 
England  were  blockaded  in  the  British  isles ;  the  continental  system  ex- 
'  eluded  them  from  the  continent.  And  it  declared  farther,  that  "  as 
long  as  the  British  orders  in  council  are  not  revoked,  and  the  principles 
of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  in  relation  to  neutrals  put  in  force,  the  decrees 
of  Berlin  ought  to  subsist  for  the  powers  who  suffer  their  flag  to  be  de- 
nationalized. The  ports  of  the  continent  ought  to  be  opened  neither  to 
denationalized  flags  nor  to  English  merchandise." 

Mr.  Monroe  said,  in  reply,  that  this  report  of  the  French  minister 
evidently  referred  to  the  continental  system,  by  the  means  relied  on  to 
enforce  it ;  it  afforded  no  proof  that  the  French  government  intended 
by  it  to  violate  its  engagement  to  tie  United  States,  as  to  the  repeal  of 
the  decrees. 

Letters  also  passed  between  these  gentlemen  on  the  subject  of  im- 
pressed seamen.  Mr.  Foster  cited  cases  in  which  British  seamen  had 
been  encouraged  to  desert  his  majesty's  service,  and  of  others  who  had 
been  detained  against  their  will  on  board  American  ships  of  v/ar ;  but 
says  his  sovereign  (then  the  prince  regent)  would  continue  to  give  the 
most  positive  orders  against  the  detention  of  American  citizens  on  board 
his  majesty's  ships. 

Mr.  Monroe  objected  to  the  attempt  to  show  the  analogy  between  the 
American  practice  and  the  British.  They  were  quite  different.  The 
regulations  of  the  United  States  prohibited  the  enlistment  of  aliens  into 
their  vessels  of  war.  No  such  regulations  existed  on  the  side  of  Great 
Britain.  Enlistments  by  force  or  impressment  were  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  the  United  States.  This  mode  of  procuring  crews  from  public 
ships  was  practiced  by  Great  Britain,  not  only  within  her  legal  jurisdic- 
tion, but  was  extended  to  foreign  vessels  on  the  high  seas.  As  to  the 
orders  against  the  detention  of  American  citizens  on  board  British  ships 
of  war,  they  would  afford  no  adequate  remedy.     Orders  should  be  given 


254  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

against  ir/ipressmcnt  itself;  and  nothing  short  of  this  would  be  effectual, 
or  prove  a  disposition  to  do  justice  or  promote  a  good  understanding 
between  the  two  countries. 

On  the  18th  of  June,  1812,  the  injunction  of  secrecy  having  been  re- 
moved from  the  proceedings  of  congress,  a  declaration  of  vv^ar  was  an- 
nounced, and  the  message  of  the  president,  and  the  report  or  manifesto  of 
the  committee  on  foreign  relations  was  published,  with  the  act  declaring 
the  war.  On  the  final  passage  of  the  bill,  the  vote  in  the  senate  was 
19  to  13  ;  in  the  house,  79  to  49. 

Before  the  adjournment,  the  federal  members  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives published  an  address  to  their  constituents,  on  the  subject  of 
the  war  with  Great  Britain.  The  minority  complain  that  they  had 
been  called  into  secret  session  on  the  most  interesting  of  all  public  rela- 
tions, without  any  reason  for  secrecy.  No  fact  not  previously  known 
was  before  the  house,  and  no  reason  for  secrecy  existed,  unless  it  was 
found  in  the  apprehension  of  the  effect  of  public  debate  on  public  opinion, 
or  of  public  opinion  on  the  result  of  the  vote. 

The  object  of  waging  war  and  invading  Canada,  the  address  said,  had 
long  been  openly  avowed,  while,  as  was  well  known,  our  army  and  navy 
were  inadequate  for  successful  invasion,  and  our  fortifications  were  insuffi 
cient  for  the  security  of  our  seaboard.  Yet  the  people  had  been  kept  in 
ignorance  of  the  progress  of  measures  until  the  purposes  of  the  adminis- 
tration were  consummated,  and  the  fate  of  the  country  was  sealed.  The 
demand  of  the  minority  for  open  doors  having  been  refused,  they  declined 
discussion,  convinced  that,  in  the  house,  all  argument  with  closed  doors 
was  hopeless. 

In  speaking  of  the  alleged  causes  of  war,  on  the  subject  of  impress- 
ment, they  remarked :  "  The  government  of  the  United  States  asserts 
the  broad  principle,  that  the  flag  of  their  merchant  vessels  shall  protect 
the  mariners.  The  privilege  is  claimed,  although  every  person  on  board 
except  the  captain  may  be  an  alien.  The  British  government  asserts 
that  the  allegiance  of  their  subjects  is  inalienable,  in  time  of  war,  and 
that  their  seamen,  found  on  the  sea,  the  common  highway  of  nations, 
shall  not  be  protected  by  the  flag  of  private  merchant  vessels."  This 
doctrine,  they  said,  was  common  to  all  the  governments  of  Europe. 
France,  as  well  as  England,  claimed,  in  time  of  war,  the  services  of  her 
subjects.  Both,  by  decrees,  forbid  their  entering  into  foreign  employ  : 
both  recall  them  by  proclamation.  None  doubted  that,  in  the  present 
state  of  the  French  marine,  if  American  merchant  vessels  were  met  at 
sea,  having  French  seamen  on  board,  France  would  take  them.  Did  any 
man  believe  that  the  United  States  would  go  to  war  with  France  on  this 
account?     They  considered  impressment  to  be  a  subject  of  arrange- 


THE   WAR    QUESTION.  255, 

ment  rather  than  of  war.  It  had  been  so  treated  by  every  former  ad- 
ministration. 

England,  they  said,  had  disavowed  the  right  of  impressment  as  it  re- 
spected our  native  citizens ;  and  an  arrangement,  it  was  believed,  might 
be  made  in  regard  to  such  as  were  naturalized.  Indeed,  Mr.  King, 
when  minister  to  England,  had  obtained  from  the  British  government  a 
disavowal  of  the  right  to  impress  American  seamen,  naturalized  as  well 
as  native,  on  the  high  seas.  An  arrangement  had  been  advanced  nearly 
to  a  conclusion,  upon  this  basis,  and  was  broken  off  only  because  Great 
Britain  insisted  on  retaining  the  right  on  the  narrow  seas.  Mr.  King 
was  of  the  opinion,  however,  "  that  with  more  time  than  was  left  him  for 
the  experiment,  the  objection  might  have  been  overcome."  Mr.  Madjson, 
it  appeared,  was  himself  of  the  same  opinion.  In  his  letters  to  Messrs. 
Monroe  and  Pinkney,  in  February,  1807,  he  says  :  "  I  take  it  for  grant- 
ed that  you  have  not  failed  to  make  due  use  of  the  arrangement  concert- 
ed by  Mr.  King  with  lord  Hawkcsbury  in  the  year  1802,  for  settling  the 
question  of  impressment.  On  that  occasion,  and  under  that  administra- 
tion, the  British  principle  was  fairly  renounced  in  favor  of  the  right  of 
our  flag,  lord  Hawkesbury  having  agreed  to  prohibit  impressment  on  the 
*  high  seas,'  and  lord  Vincents  requiring  no  more  than  an  exception  of 
the  narrow  seas,  an  exception  resting  on  the  obsolete  claim  of  Great 
Britain  to  some  peculiar  dominion  over  them." 

It  appeared  farther,  that  the  British  ministry  had  called  for  an  inter- 
view with  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney  on  this  topic,  at  which  they 
had  gone  so  far  as  to  offer,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  to  pass  laws 
making  it  penal  for  British  commanders  to  impress  American  citizens  on 
board  of  American  vessels  on  the  high  seas,  if  America  could  pass  a  law 
making  it  penal  for  the  ofl&cers  of  the  United  States  to  grant  certificates 
of  citizenship  to  British  subjects.  And  Mr.  Monroe,  after  his  return,  in 
a  letter  from  Richmond  to  Mr.  Madison,  dated  February  28,  1808,  said  : 
"  I  have,  on  the  contrary,  always  believed^  and  still  do  believe,  that  the 
ground  on  which  that  interest  (impressment)  was  placed  by  the  paper 
of  the  British  commissioners  of  the  8th  of  November,  1806,  and  the  ex- 
planation which  accompanied  it,  was  both  honorable  and  advantageous 
to  the  United  States  ;  that  it  contained  a  concession  in  their  favor,  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain,  on  the  great  principle  in  contestation,  never 
before  made  by  a  formal  and  obligatory  act  of  their  government,  which 
was  highly  favorable  to  their  interest."  In  view  of  these  facts,  the  mi- 
nority thought  this  subject  furnished  no  proper  cause  of  war. 

They  undertook  to  show  also,  that  the  blockade  of  1806,  which  had 
been  made  a  specific  ground  of  complaint,  and  a  cause  of  war,  was  re- 
garded at  first  as  favorable   to  the  United   States.     As  the  manner  in 


256  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

whicli  tlie  American  and  French  governments,  in  tlieir  official  papers, 
had  spoken  of  the  order  of  blockade,  was  vague  and  indeterminate,  and 
calculated  to  mislead,  they  presented  the  following  facts :  In  August, 
1 804,  the  British  established  a  blockade  at  the  entrance  of  the  French 
ports  from  Ostend  to  the  Seine.  The  nearness  of  these  ports  to  the  British 
coasts,  and  the  absence  of  all  complaint,  authorized  the  belief  that  the 
blockade  was  lawful,  and  enforced  according  to  the  usage  of  nations.  On 
the  16th  of  May,  1806,  the  English  secretary  of  state,  Mr.  Fox,  notified 
our  minister  at  London,  Mr.  Monroe,  that  the  British  government  had 
thought  fit  to  direct  measures  to  be  taken  for  the  blockade  of  the  coasts, 
rivers,  and  ports,  from  the  river  Elbe  to  the  river  Brest,  both  inclusive. 
The  order,  however,  declared  "  that  such  blockade  shall  not  prevent 
neutral  vessels  laden  with  goods  not  being  the  property  of  his  majesty's 
enemies,  and  not  contraband  of  war,  from  approaching,  entering,  or  leav- 
ing the  said  coasts,  rivers,  and  ports,  except  those  from  Ostend  to  the 
Seine,  already  in  a  state  of  rigorous  blockade,  and  which  are  to  be  so 
continued  ;"  and  provided  that  the  vessels  entering  had  not  been  laden 
at  an  enemy's  port,  and  the  vessels  departing  were  not  destined  to  an 
enemy's  port. 

Hence  it  appeared,  that  the  order  did  not  actually  extend  the  block- 
ade ;  and  instead  of  operating  against  our  trade,  it  was  considered  at 
the  time  as  designed  to  favor  it,  as  the  minority  infer  from  the  letters  of 
Monroe  to  Mr.  Madison.  On  the  17th  of  May,  1806,  he  wrote,  that  the 
order  of  blockade  was  "  couched  in  terms  of  restraint,  and  professes  to 
extend  the  blockade  further  than  was  heretofore  done ;  nevertheless  it 
takes  it  from  many  ports  already  blockaded ;  indeed  from  all  east  of 
Ostend,  and  west  of  the  Seine,  except  in  articles  contraband  of  war  and 
enemy's  property,  which  are  seizable  without  blockade.  And  in  like 
form  of  exception,  ....  it  admits  the  trade  of  neutrals  within  the  same 
limits  to  be  free  in  the  productions  of  enemies'  colonies,  in  every  but  the 
direct  route,  between  the  colony  and  the  parent  country ;"  adding,  "  it 
can  not  be  doubted  that  the  note  was  drawn  by  the  government  in  refer- 
ence to  the  question ;  and  if  intended  as  the  foundation  of  a  treaty, 
must  be  viewed  in  a  favorable  light."  And  on  the  20th  of  May,  he 
wrote,  that  he  had  been  "  strengthened  in  the  opinion,  that  the  order  of 
the  16th  was  drawn  with  a  view  to  the  question  of  our  trade  with  the 
enemies'  colonies,  and  that  it  promises  to  be  highly  satisfactory  to  our 
commercial  interest" 

In  reference  to  this  blockade,  the  minority  said,  as  Mr.  Foster  had 
said  to  Mr.  Monroe,  that  "  it  had  never  been  made  the  subject  of 
complaint  by  the  American  government,  until  after  the  first  order  in 
council;  and  indeed  not  until  the  1st  of  May,  1810,  and  until  after  the 


THE    WAR    QUESTION.  257 

American  government  was  apprised  of  the  ground  which  it  was  the  will 
of  France  should  be  taken  on  the  subject."  In  proof  of  this,  they  refer- 
red to  the  offers  made  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson  for 
the  discontinuance  of  the  embargo  as  it  related  to  Great  Britain ;  none 
of  which  required  the  repeal  of  the  blockade  of  May,  1 806.  Nor  was  it 
required  by  the  arrangement  made  with  Mr.  Erskine  during  the  adminis- 
tration of  Mr.  Madison.  It  did  not  appear  to  be  of  sufficient  import- 
ance to  engage  even  a  thought;  yet,  under  the  act  of  May,  1810,  it  is 
made  by  our  cabinet  a  sine  qua  non — an  indispensable  requisite  ! 

The  British  orders  in  council,  were  the  remainiug  cause  of  war.  They 
had  heretofore  been  considered  by  our  government  in  connection  with  the 
French  decrees.  Certainly,  both  formed  a  system  subversive  of  neutral 
rights  ;  yet  the  undersigned  could  not  persuade  themselves  that  the  or- 
ders in  council,  as  they  now  existed,  and  with  their  present  effect  and 
operation,  justified  the  selection  of  Grreat  Britain  as  our  enemy,  and  ren- 
dered necessary  a  declaration  of  unqualified  war. 

It  was  contended  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had  never  been 
revoked.  The  condition  on  which  the  non-intercourse,  according  to  the 
act  of  the  1st  of  May,  1810,  was  to  be  revived  against  Great  Britain, 
was,  on  the  part  of  France,  an  effectual  revocation  of  her  decrees.  The 
president  was  bound  to  require  evidence  of  such  revocation.  A  revoca- 
tion to  be  effectual,  must  require,  that  the  wrongs  done  to  the  commerce 
of  the  United  States  by  the  operation  of  the  decrees  should  be  stopped. 
According  to  the  address,  the  release  of  vessels,  after  capture  and  deten- 
tion, was  not  evidence  of  the  repeal.  The  authority  to  capture^  was  the 
very  essence  of  the  wrong,  and  must  be  annulled,  before  the  decrees 
could  be  considered  effectually  revoked.  The  letter  of  the  duke  of  Ca- 
dore  of  the  5th  of  August,  1810,  was  no  annullment  of  this  authority. 
The  imperial  act  which  gave  the  authority,  required,  to  annul  it,  another 
imperial  act  equally  formal  and  solemn.  This  subject  was  pursued  at  great 
length,  with  a  view  to  prove  that  these  decrees  had  never  been  revoked. 

Was  there  any  thing  in  the  friendship  or  commerce  of  France,  they 
asked,  very  interesting  or  alluring  for  entering  into  hostilities  ?  Of  our 
exports  during  the  last  year,  amounting  to  upwards  of  45  millions  of 
dollars,  a  little  more  than  one  million  in  value  was  exported  to  France. 
France  was  now  deprived  of  all  her  foreign  colonies ;  and  our  trade  to 
that  country  had  been,  for  several  years  past,  and  before  the  date  of  the 
orders  in  council,  comparatively  inconsiderable. 

"  But,"  says  the  address,  "  it  is  said  that  war  is  demanded  by  honor. 
Is  national  honor  a  principle  which  thirsts  after  vengeance,  and  is  appeased 
only  by  blood  ?  which,  trampling  on  the  hopes  of  man,  and  spurning  the 
laws  of  God,  untaught  by  what  is  past,  and  careless  of  what  is  to  come 

17 


253  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

precipitates  itself  into  any  folly  or  madness,  to  gratify  a  selfish  vanity,  or 
to  satiate  some  unhallowed  rage?  If  honor  demands  a  war  with  Eng- 
land, what  opiate  lulls  that  honor  to  sleep  over  the  wrongs  done  us  by 
France  ?  On  land,  robberies,  seizures,  imprisonments  by  French  author- 
ity ;  at  sea,  pillage,  sinkings,  burnings  under  French  orders.  These  are 
notorious.  Are  they  unfelt  because  they  are  French  ?  Is  any  allevia- 
tion to  be  found  in  the  correspondence  and  humiliations  of  the  present 
minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  at  the  French  court  ?  In 
his  communications  to  our  government,  as  before  the  public,  where  is  the 
cause  for  selecting  France  as  the  friend  of  our  country,  and  England 
as  the  enemy  ?"     *     *     * 

"  At  a  crisis  of  the  world  such  as  the  present,  and  under  impressions 
such  as  these,  the  undersigned  could  not  consider  the  war  into  which 
the  United  States  have,  in  secret,  been  precipitated,  as  necessary,  or 
required  by  any  moral  duty,  or  any  political  expediency." 

This  address  was  signed  by  34  members  of  the  house,  all  federalists  ; 
of  whom  there  were,  from  New  Hampshire,  1  ;  Massachusetts,  8  ;  Con- 
necticut 7 ;  Rhode  Island,  2 ;  Vermont,  1  ;  New  York,  4 ;  Pennsyl- 
vania, 1 ;  Delaware,  1 ;  Maryland,  3 ;  Virginia,  4  ;  North  Carolina,  2. 
There  were  only  two  federalists  in  the  house  who  did  not  sign  the  address: 
and  their  names  are  not  among  the  yeas  or  nays  on  the  passage  of  the 
war  act.  Of  the  republicans  wljo  voted  against  war,  there  were  from 
Massachusetts,  1 ;  New  York,  7 ;  New  Jersey,  4 ;  Virginia,  (Randolph) 
1 ;  Pennsylvania,  1  ;   North  Carolina,  1. 

Although  all  the  federal  members  of  the  house,  and  nearly  the  whole 
federal  party,  were  opposed  to  the  declaration  of  war ;  yet  many  of  the 
party,  after  war  had  been  declared,  gave  it  their  support  as  a  measure 
of  the  country.  Among  its  federal  supporters  of  distinction,  was  ex- 
president  John  Adams. 

A  few  days  before  the  declaration  of  war,  an  arrival  from  Europe 
brought  a  copy  of  a  decree  of  Napoleon,  repealing  the  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees.  This  decree  of  repeal  was  dated  April  28,  1811,  and  was  in 
the  following  words : 

"  On  the  report  of  our  minister  for  foreign  affairs. 

"  Being  informed  of  the  law  of  the  2d  of  March,  1811,  by  which  the 
congress  of  the  United  States  has  decreed  the  exemption  of  the  provis- 
ions of  the  act  of  non-intercourse,  which  interdicts  the  entry  into  Ameri- 
can ports,  of  the  ships  and  the  merchandise  of  Grreat  Britain,  her  colonies 
and  dependencies : 

"  Considering  that  the  said  law  is  an  act  of  resistance  to  the  arbitrary 
pretensions  advanced  by  the  British  orders  in  council,  and  a  formal 
refusal  to  sanction  a  system  hostile  to  the  independence  of  neutral  pow- 
ers and  of  their  flao;s  : 


BRITISH    ORDERS    REVOKED.  259 

"  We  have  decreed,  and  do  decree,  as  follows : 

"  The  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan  are  definitely  (from  the  1st  of 
November  last,)  considered  as  no  longer  in  force,  as  far  as  regards 
American  vessels." 

A  powerful  incentive  to  the  publication  of  this  decree,  is  presumed  to 
have  been,  that  the  British  government  was  making  use  of  the  duke  of 
Bassano's  report  of  the  10th  of  March,  to  prove  the  non-repeal  of  the 
Berlin  and  Milan  decrees.  And  probably  this  fact  aided  our  minister, 
Mr.  Barlow,  in  extracting  this  decree  from  the  emperor.  It  was  strongly 
suspected,  that  no  act  of  repeal  had  taken  place  previously  to  the  publi- 
cation of  the  above.  This  suspicion  was  justified  by  the  fact,  that  neither 
Mr.  Russell,  who  was  charg^  at  Paris  at  the  time  the  decree  purports  to 
have  been  issued,  nor  Mr.  Serrurier,  the  French  minister  at  Washington, 
had  any  information  of  it,  as  they  both  asserted  against  the  declaration 
of  Bassano  to  Mr.  Barlow  that  it  had  been  communicated  to  both  of 
them.  Its  bearing  date  nearly  a  year  before  its  appearance,  afi"orded,  of 
itself,  strong  ground  for  doubting  its  preexistence. 
-  Early  in  August  intelligence  was  received  of  the  revocation  of  the 
British  orders  in  council.  The  prince  regent,  in  the  name  and  on  be- 
half of  the  king,  had,  on  the  21st  of  April,  1812,  issued  a  declaration, 
"  That  if,  at  any  time  thereafter,  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  should, 
by  some  authentic  act  of  the  French  government,  publicly  promulgated, 
be  unconditionally  repealed,  the  orders  in  council  of  the  7th  of  January, 
1807,  and  of  the  26th  of  April,  1809,  should  thenceforth  be  wholly 
revoked."  Mr.  Russell,  our  charg^  at  London,  having,  on  the  2 1st  of 
May,  transmitted  to  lord  Castlereagh  a  copy  of  the  French  decree  of 
repeal,  the  prince  regent,  on  the  23d  of  June,  publicly  declared  the  orders 
to  be  revoked,  so  far  as  might  regard  American  vessels  and  their  cargoes 
being  American  property,  from  the  1st  day  of  August  next.  He  stated, 
however,  that  he  did  not  consider  the  conditions  of  his  order  in  April  as 
satisfied  by  the  French  decree,  but  he  was  "  disposed  to  take  such  meas- 
ures as  might  tend  to  reestablish  the  intercourse  between  the  neutral 
and  belligerent  nations  upon  its  accustomed  principles."  The  revocation 
was  of  course  conditioned  upon  the  repeal,  by  the  United  States,  of  the 
non-intercourse  acts  by  which  British  vessels  were  excluded  from  our 
ports. 

This  act  of  the  British  government  was  caused  by  the  complaints  of 
the  manufacturers,  who  had  begun  to  feel  the  effects  of  the  renewal  of 
)ur  non-importation  act,  and  in  whose  behalf  some  movement  had  been 
^  nade  in  parliament,  and  by  the  favor  which  the  measure  received  from 
■*Jie  new  ministry ;  there  having  been  an  entire  change  in  that  branch  of 
*he  British  government. 


260  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Soon  after  the  declaration  of  war,  Mr.  Foster  took  his  departure,  bear- 
ing a  letter  from  Mr.  Monroe  to  Mr.  Eussell,  charg^  at  London,  author- 
izing him  to  propose  to  the  British  government  a  suspension  of  hostili- 
ties with  a  view  to  an  adjustment  of  all  difficulties  between  the  two 
countries.  The  conditions  of  the  proposed  armistice  were,  that  the 
orders  in  council  should  be  revoked,  and  no  illegal  blockades  substituted 
for  them ;  and  that  orders  should  be  given  to  discontinue  the  impress- 
ment of  seamen  from  our  vessels,  and  to  restore  those  already  impressed. 
As  an  inducement  to  the  British  government  to  discontinue  impressments, 
assurances  might  be  given,  that  a  law  would  be  passed  by  congress  to 
prohibit  the  employment  of  British  seamen  in  our  vessels,  public  or 
private ;  a  similar  prohibtion  to  be  enacted  by  Great  Britain  against  the 
employment  of  American  citizens.  These  reciprocal  enactments  would 
operate  most  in  favor  of  Great  Britain,  as  few  of  our  seamen  voluntarily 
entered  the  British  service. 

In  a  subsequent  letter  of  the  27th  of  July,  Mr.  Monroe  authorized 
Mr.  Russell  to  modify  the  propositions  so  as  to  free  them  still  farther 
from  reasonable  objection  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  by  dispensing 
with  the  former  condition  of  an  express  previous  stipulation  on  the  sub- 
ject of  impressment.  That  is,  he  might  agree,  in  general  terms,  in  order 
to  allow  full  time  for  a  general  adjustment  of  difficulties,  that  an  armis- 
tice should  take  place  for  that  purpose,  on  the  simple  condition  that  com- 
missioners should  be  appointed  by  each  party,  with  power  to  form  a 
treaty  providing  to  secure  the  seamen  of  each  from  being  taken  or  em- 
ployed in  the  service  of  the  other,  and  to  regulate  commerce  and  all 
other  interesting  questions  between  them. 

At  Halifax,  on  his  way  home,  Mr.  Foster  received  dispatches  from  his 
government,  dated  about  the  1 7th  of  June,  and  directed  to  him  at  Wash- 
ington, but  which  he  there  opened,  informing  him  of  the  intended  revo- 
cation of  the  orders  in  council,  to  take  effect  on  the  1st  of  August.  Pre- 
suming that  the  object  of  communicating  this  intention  was  to  prevent  or 
stop  hostilities,  he  sent  the  dispatches  to  Mr.  Baker,  secretary  to  the 
British  legation,  still  at  Washington,  and  requested  him  to  communicate 
to  our  government  the  contemplated  change  of  policy  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain,  and  to  propose  a  suspension  of  hostilities.  Having  had  a 
conversation  at  Halifax  with  vice-admiral  Sawyer,  naval  commander,  and 
sir  John  Sherbroke,  lieutenant-governor,  he  was  authorized  by  them  to 
say  to  Mr.  Baker,  that  decisions  of  cases  of  capture  of  American  vessels 
should  be  suspended.  He  had  not  seen  sir  George  Provost,  the  governor- 
in-chief,  and  captain-general  of  the  land  forces ;  but  he  had  written  to 
him  by  express,  and  did  not  doubt  his  agreeing  to  the  arrangement.  Our 
government,  however,  declined  the  proposition,  alleging  as  a  reason,  that 


ARMISTICE    DECLINED.  261 

it  was  not  probable,  even  if  it  was  less  liable  to  insuperable  dijQ&culties, 
that  it  could  have  any  material  eflfect  sooner  than  the  arrangement  pro- 
posed through  Mr.  Russell,  if  it  should  be  favorably  received. 

These  facts  were  communicated  by  letters  of  the  9th  and  10th  of 
August,  to  Mr.  Russell,  by  Mr.  Graham,  acting  as  secretary  in  the  tempo- 
rary absence  of  Mr.  Monroe,  who,  after  his  return,  wrote  to  Mr.  Russell, 
detailing  at  length  the  principal  reasons  against  accepting  the  proposition. 
1st.  The  president  had  no  power  to  suspend  judicial  proceedings  on 
prizes.  2d.  The  proposition  did  not  proceed  from  the  British  govern- 
ment, and  might  not  be  approved  by  it.  3d.  No  security  was  proposed 
against  the  Indians,  who  had  engaged  in  the  war  on  the  side  of  Great 
Britain.  4th.  The  proposition  was  not  equal,  as  it  would  restrain  us 
from  attacking  Canada,  and  give  Great  Britain  time  to  augment  her 
forces  there.  5th.  As  a  principal  object  of  the  war  was  redress  for  im- 
pressments, an  agreement  to  suspend  hostilities,  even  -before  the  British 
government  was  heard  from,  might  be  considered  a  relinquishment  of 
that  claim.  6th.  The  instructions  given  him  (Mr.  Russell,)  if  met  by 
the  British  government,  might  have  already  produced  the  same  result  in 
a  greater  extent  and  more  satisfactory  form.  He  also  stated  several 
points  in  which  the  declaration  itself  was  objectionable. 

In  September,  Admiral  Warren,  who  was  sent  out  as  commander  of 
the  British  naval  forces  on  the  American  coasts,  arrived  at  Halifax.  He 
had  power  also  to  propose  an  armistice,  and  negotiate  an  arrangement 
respecting  the  repeal  of  our  non- intercourse  regulations.  The  president 
was  unwilling  to  suspend  hostilities,  without  an  agreement  on  the  part 
of  Great  Britain  to  suspend  her  impressments  ;  and  as  Warren  had  no 
power  on  that  subject,  the  proposals  for  an  armistice  were  rejected.  As 
the  propositions  through  Mr.  Russell  to  the  British  government  were 
also  rejected,  the  war  was  prosecuted.  And,  as  the  orders  in  council 
had  been  conditionally  revoked,  the  only  remaining  grievance  to  be 
redressed  by  war,  was  that  of  impressment — a  grievance,  however,  of 
great  magnitude.  The  number  of  impressments  has  never  been  accu- 
rately ascertained.  There  were  recorded  in  the  state  department,  more 
than  six  thousand  cases  ;  which,  it  was  supposed,  was  scarcely  half  the 
number  actually  impressed.  Making  all  due  allowance  for  cases  of 
persons  falsely  claiming  to  be  American  citizens,  the  number  must  still 
have  been  very  great.  Many  of  them  were  doomed  to  a  cruel  service  on 
board  British  vessels  until  they  could  prove  themselves  Americans, 
which,  while  in  such  condition,  was  in  most  cases  impossible.  And  when 
at  last  war  took  place  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  they 
were  compelled  to  fight  against  their  own  country,  or  suffer  imprison- 
ment    Thousands,  it  is  said,  did  actually  choose  the  latter  alternative, 


262  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN.     ' 

the  most  of  whom,  unable  to  procure  the  necessary  proof  of  their  origin, 
were  not  liberated  till  after  the  restoration  of  peace.  The  name  of 
Dartmoor  became  notorious  from  the  number  confined  within  its  prison. 

After  the  declaration  of  war,  and  before  congress  adjourned,  acts 
having  reference  to  the  war  were  passed,  for  the  more  perfect  organiza- 
tion of  the  army;  to  authorize  the  issuing  of  treasury  notes  ;  for  impos- 
ing additional  duties  on  imports ;  to  make  farther  appropriation  for  the 
defense  of  the  maritime  frontier  and  for  the  support  of  the  navy ;  for 
the  safe  keeping  and  accommodation  of  prisoners  of  war ;  for  prohibiting 
American  vessels  from  trading  with  enemies  of  the  United  States; 
besides  several  others.  An  act  had  passed  in  March,  authorizing  a  loan 
not  exceeding  $11,000,000.  An  act  was  also  passed  before  adjourn- 
ment, fixing  the  1st  Monday  of  November  for  the  next  meeting  of  con- 
gress. 

An  act  having  been  passed  at  the  previous  session  of  congress  to 
enable  the  people  of  the  territory  of  Orleans  to  form  a  constitution  and 
state  government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such  state  into  the  union ; 
an  act  was  passed  at  the  present  session,  declaring  the  state  to  be  admit- 
ted into  the  union,  with  the  name  of  Louisiana.  And  by  another  act, 
the  name  of  the  Louisiana  territory  was  changed  to  that  of  Missouri,  and 
its  government  to  a  territorial  government  of  the  first  class,  the  legisla- 
ture being  chosen  by  the  people.  . 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

REELECTION    OF  MR.  MADISON. CONTROVERSY  WITH    MASSACHUSETTS  AND 

CONNECTICUT. RUSSIA     OFFERS     TO    MEDIATE. DUTIES    AND     TAXES. 

EMBARGO. ITS  SUDDEN  REPEAL. OFFER  TO  NEGOTIATE ACCEPTED. 

OAPITOL    BURNED. HARTFORD    COVENTION. BANK  PROJECTS. 

The  presidential  election  of  1812,  resulted  in  the  election  of  a 
majority  of  electors  in  favor  of  Messrs.  Madison  and  Gerry  for  president 
and  vice-president ;  the  former  receiving  128  votes  and  the  latter  131. 
DeWitt  Clinton  received  89  votes  for  president,  and  Jared  Ingersoll, 
of  Pennsylvania,  86  for  vice-president.  They  were  supported  by  the 
republican  party  of  the  state  of  New  York,  and  the  federal  party  gene- 
rally. Mr.  Clinton  was  adopted  by  a  general  convention  of  the  latter 
party,  in  which  eleven  states  were  represented;  all  of  those  north  of  the 
Potomac,  with  South  Carolina.     Though  a  republican,  he  was  nominated 


CONTROVERSY  WITH    MASSACHUSETTS  AND  CONNECTICUT.  263 

with  a. view  of  defeating  Mr.  Madison,  which  the  reduced  strength  of 
the  federal  party  had  rendered  hopeless  with  a  candidate  of  their  own 
politics.     Mr.  IngersoU  was  a  moderate  federalist. 

The  2ud  session  of  the  12th  congress  comnlenced  on  the  2nd  day  of 
November,  1812.  The  leading  topics  of  the  message  were  those  relating 
to  the  war.  He  recapitulated  the  important  events  which  had  occurred 
since  the  last  session  ;  presented  the  present  condition  of  the  country ; 
and  recommended  farther  measures  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war. 
Among  the  subjects  noticed  in  the  message,  was  the  refusal  of  the  gov- 
ernors of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  to  furnish  the  required  detach- 
ments of  militia  toward  the  defense  of  the  maritime  frontier.  One  of 
the  grounds  of  this  refusal  was,  that,  in  their  opinion,  there  was  at  that 
time  no  invasion,  nor  any  danger  of  one,  to  render  a  call  for  the  militia 
necessary.  The  denseness  of  the  population  along  the  sea-coast,  espe- 
cially of  Massachusetts,  was  such  as  to  admit  a  speedy  assembling  of 
her  well  disciplined  militia  at  any  point  of  danger  ;  and  the  governor 
deemed  it  unnecessary  either  to  take  them  from  their  employments,  or  to 
incur  the  expense  of  supporting  an  unemployed  military  force.  Assuming 
the  right  to  judge  of  the  existence  of  an  emergency  which  should  justify 
such  a  call,  they  refused  compliance.  The  legislature  of  Connecticut 
passed  an  act  to  raise  a  provisional  army  of  2,600  men  for  its  own 
defense. 

An  act  was  passed  at  this  session  authorizing  a  loan  of  sixteen  mil- 
lions of  dollars  ;  and  an,act  authorizing  the  issue  of  treasury  notes  not 
exceeding  the  sum  of  five  millions. 

With  the  expectation  that  the  suspension  of  the  non-importation  act 
would,  according  to  its  own  provisions,  follow  the  repeal  of  the  orders  in 
council,  American  vessels  in  the  ports  of  Great  Britain  at  the  time  of 
the  repeal,  were  loaded  with  British  goods,  which  on  arrival  in  our  ports 
became  forfeited.      This  exportation  of  goods  from  Great  Britain  con- 
tinued for  several  weeks,  encouraged  by  the  opinion  of  Mr.   Russell, 
American  charge  at  London,  that  the  non-importation  law  would  cease 
to  operate.     Eighteen  millions'  worth  of  goods  which  had  during  this 
time  left  England,  was  illegally  brought  into   our  ports.     These  goods 
instead  of  being  detained  by  the  government,  were  delivered  to  the  claim 
ants,  on  their  giving  bonds  for  the  amount  of  their  value.     An  act  was 
passed,  mainly  through  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Cheves  and  Mr.    Calhoun 
though  opposed  by  leading  men  of  their  own  party,  remitting  the  for 
feitures  under  the  act.     The  vote  in  the  house  on  the  bill  was  64  to  61 
The  federal  members,  objecting  to  certain  provisions  of  the  bill,  voted 
against  it. 

By  another  act,  the  president  was  authorized  to  cause  ample  retalia- 


264  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tion  to  be  made,  according  to  the  laws  and  usages  of  war  among  civilized 
nations,  for  any  violations  of  such  laws  and  usages  which  should  be 
committed  on  American  citizens  by  persons  acting  under  British  au- 
thority, or  by  Indians  in  alliance  with  the  British  government. 

An  act  was  passed,  near  the  close  of  the  session,  by  which  the  next 
congress  was  required  to  meet  on  the  4th  Monday  of  May. 

On  the  3d  of  March,  1813,  Mr.  Madison's  first  term  expired;  and  on 
the  next  day,  he  was  again  inaugurated. 

Mr.  Adams  was  at  this  time,  and  had  been  since  1809,  minister  at  St. 
Petersburg.  With  his  approbation,  it  is  said,  the  Russian  emperor, 
Alexander,  tendered  his  offices  as  mediator  between  the  two  governments. 
The  offer  was  communicated  to  our  government  early  in  March,  1813, 
through  Mr.  Daschkoff,  the  Russian  minister  at  Washington  :  whereupon 
Mr.  Madison  immediately  nominated  Mr.  Gallatin,  then  secretary  of  the 
treasury,  and  Mr.  Bayard,  of  Delaware,  senator  in  congress,  as  ministers, 
with  whom  Mr.  Adams  was  to  be  associated,  to  negotiate  a  peace  with 
Great  Britain.  Both  the  former  gentlemen  were,  it  is  said,  in  favor  of 
peace.  Mr.  Crawford,  senator  from  Georgia,  was  appointed  minister  to 
France,  in  place  of  Mr.  Barlow  deceased. 

Congress,  pursuant  to  the  act  of  the  preceding  session,  met  on  the 
24th  day  of  May,  1813.  The  nomination  of  commissioners  to  negotiate 
peace  with  Great  Britain  was  at  an  early  day  submitted  to  the  senate. 
The  nomination  of  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Bayard  was  confirmed,  but  that 
of  Mr.  Gallatin  was  rejected,  for  the  reason  that  he  still  held  the  office 
of  secretary  of  the  treasury.  The  nomination  of  Mr.  Russell  as  minister 
to  Sweden,  was  also  rejected. 

In  his  message  to  congress,  the  president  noticed  with  satisfaction  the 
proffer  of  mediation  by  the  Russian  emperor,  and  stated  that  it  had 
been  promptly  accepted;  and  he  presumed  from  the  sentiments  of 
Great  Britain  toward  that  sovereign,  that  it  had  also  been  accepted  by 
the  British  government. 

The  principal  subject  of  the  message  was  the  increase  of  the  revenue, 
which  was  necessary  to  meet  the  demands  upon  the  treasury  the  coming 
year.  To  provide  for  this  object  appears  to  have  been  the  chief  design 
of  this  early  meeting  of  the  new  congress.  Several  acts  for  the  purpose 
were  passed.  By  one  of  these  acts,  a  direct  tax  of  three  millions  was 
levied  on  real  estate  and  slaves.  Another  imposed  a  duty  of  four  cents 
a  pound  on  all  sugar  refined  within  the  United  States.  Another  laid  a 
duty  on  pleasure  carriages  :  on  every  coach,  $20  a  year ;  on  a  chariot  or 
post-chaise,  $17;  on  a  phaeton  or  coachee,  $10;  on  a  four-wheel  car- 
riage hanging  on  steel  or  iron  springs,  $7 ;  on  a  four-wheel  carriage  on 
wooden  springs,  and  a  two-wheel  carriage  on  iron  or  steel  springs,  $4 ; 


DUTIES   AND    TAXES.  265 

and  on  every  other  four  or  two  wlieel  carriage,  $2.  An  act  was  also 
passed  laying  duties  on  licenses  to  distillers  of  spirituous  liquors.  The 
duty  was  laid  per  gallon,  not  according  to  the  number  of  gallons  manu- 
factured, but  according  to  the  capacity  of  the  still,  including  the  head 
thereof.  On  a  license  for  two  weeks,  9  cents  a  gallon ;  the  proportional 
duty  per  gallon  slightly  diminishing  for  a  longer  term,  being  for  six 
months  70  cents  a  gallon.  A  higher  duty  was  imposed  if  the  spirits 
were  manufactured  from  foreign  materials.  A  duty  of  one  per  cent, 
was  laid  on  sales  at  auction.  Duties  were  also  laid  on  licenses  to  retail- 
ers of  wines,  spirituous  liquors,  and  foreign  merchandise.  The  duty 
annually  on  a  license  was  from  $10  to  $25,  being  graduated  according 
to  the  number  of  families  within  a  given  territory ;  and  being  also  less 
or  more  if  only  a  part  or  if  all  the  different  classes  of  goods  were  to  be 
sold.  Duties  were  also  laid  on  stamps ;  viz.,  on  bank  notes  or  bills,  one 
per  cent. ;  on  bonds  or  promissory  notes  discounted  by  banks,  and  on  bills 
of  exchange,  certain  fixed  sums,  according  to  the  amount  specified  in 
the  obligation  or  writing.  And  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  was  au- 
thorized to  compound  with  the  banks  for  one  and  a  half  per  cent,  on  their 
annual  dividends,  in  lieu  of  the  stamp  duty.  From  these  duties  two 
millions  were  expected.  The  duties  and  taxes  imposed  by  the  preceding 
acts  were  to  begin  with  the  year  1814.  An  additional  sum  of  $7,500,000 
was  authorized  to  be  raised  by  loan. 

An  act  was  passed  at  this  session,  allowing  a  bounty  of  $25  to  the 
owners,  officers  and  crews  of  private  armed  vessels,  (privateers,)  for  each 
prisoner  captured  and  brought  into  port.  Also  an  act  prohibiting  our 
citizens  from  obtaining  or  using  any  license  granted  by  the  government 
of  Grreat  Britian  for  the  protection  of  any  vessel  or  merchandise,  under 
a  penalty  of  double  the  value  of  the  ship  and  merchandise,  besides 
being  liable  to  be  adjudged  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  fined  not  ex- 
ceeding $5,000,  nor  less  than  $1,000. 

The  2d  session  of  the  13th  congress  commenced  on  the  6th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1813.  An  account  of  the  progress  of  the  war,  and  the  state  of  the 
finances,  constituted  the  burden  of  the  president's  message.  He  made 
mention  also  of  the  unexpected  refusal  of  Great  Britain  to  accept  the 
mediation  of  Eussia. 

On  the  9th  of  December,  he  communicated  a  confidential  message 
recommending  another  embargo.  Supplies  of  the  most  essential  kind, 
he  said,  were  finding  their  way  to  British  ports  and  armies  ;  and  British 
goods  were  coming  into  our  ports,  in  contravention  of  the  non-importa- 
tion act,  often  in  British  vessels  disguised  as  neutrals  by  false  colors  and 
papers.  To  prevent  these  and  several  other  evils,  an  embargo  was 
deemed  necessary.     An  act,  very  stringent  in  its  provisions,  was  accord- 


266  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

mgly  passed  in  secret  session.  Sucli  was  the  operation  of  this  act  upon 
coasting  vessels,  that  it  was  soon  found  necessary  to  pass  an  act  permitting 
the  return  to  the  ports  where  they  were  owned,  of  such  of  these  vessels 
as  were  in  other  districts  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  embargo  act. 

The  issue  of  treasury  notes  to  the  amount  of  five  millions,  and  a  loan 
of  twenty-five  millions,  were  authorized ;  and  several  acts  were  also 
passed  for  the  increase  of  the  army  and  the  support  of  the  navy. 

Before  the  close  of  the  session,  an  act  was  unexpectedly  passed,  re- 
pealing both  the  recent  embargo  act,  and  the  non-importation  act  by 
which  the  importation  of  British  goods  had  been  prohibited ;  except  so 
far  as  it  aff'ected  property  belonging  to  an  enemy  at  the  time  of  its  im- 
portation, which  was  still  to  be  excluded.  This  repeal  was  enacted  in 
pursuance  of  a  recommendation  of  the  president  in  a  special  message  of 
the  31st  of  May,  stating  as  reasons,  "the  mutual  interests  which  the 
United  States  and  the  foreign  nations  in  amity  with  them  have  in  a 
liberal  commercial  intercourse,  and  the  extensive  changes  favorable 
thereto  which  have  recently  taken  place."  The  "  changes"  here  referred 
to  had  been  produced  by  recent  occurrences  in  Europe.  The  allied 
powers  had  offered  peace  to  France,  and  negotiations  for  that  object  had 
commenced ;  but  they  had  been  abruptly  terminated.  The  allied  armies 
had  entered  France ;  and,  as  a  consequence,  Bonaparte's  "  continental 
system"  had  been  ripped  up,  and  trade  with  the  continent  reopened  to 
the  northern  nations  of  Europe,  including  Great  Britain.  This  unex- 
pected repeal  of  French  decrees  and  British  orders,  had  dictated  the 
policy  recommended  by  the  president. 

On  the  4th  of  April,  Mr.  Calhoun,  from  the  committee  on  foreign  re- 
lations, made  a  brief  report,  accompanied  by  a  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the 
acts  mentioned.  The  reasons  assigned  by  the  report  for  this  measure, 
were,  in  substance,  that  our  commercial  intercourse  with  the  friendly 
powers  of  the  world  having  been  obstructed,  the  bearing  of  our  restric- 
tive measures  had  been  chiefly  confined  to  our  enemies.  But  there  was 
now  a  prospect  of  an  extended  commerce  with  the  former,  which,  it  was 
presumed,  they  would  find  an  equal  interest  and  disposition  to  promote. 
Denmark,  all  Germany,  and  Holland,  had  been  liberated  from  the  double 
restraint  of  internal  regulation  and  external  blockades,  and  depredations 
from  a  commerce  with  the  United  States.  Other  reasons  for  the  open- 
ing of  our  ports  were,  that  it  would  augment  the  revenue,  and  maintain 
the  public  credit ;  that  it  would  enhance  the  price  of  our  produce,  and 
promote  its  circulation,  in  lieu  of  specie,  which  had  lately  become  so 
much  the  object  of  speculations  tending  to  embarrass  the  government. 
An  increase  of  revenue  was  certainly  an  important  object,  as  loans  could 
not  then  be  effected  on  the  credit  of  the  government  without  considerable 
r''^~'^ce. 


OFFER    TO    NEGOTIATE ACCEPTED.  267 

,  The  president  also  recommended,  as  an  additional  safeguard  and  en- 
couragement to  our  growing  manufactures,  that  the  double  duties  on  im- 
parts which  were  to  expire  at  the  end  of  one  year  after  a  peace  with 
Great  Britain,  should  be  prolonged  a  year ;  and  that,  in  favor  of  our 
moneyed  institutions  the  exportation  of  specie  during  the  same  period 
should  be  prohibited.  A  bill  for  the  latter  purpose  was  introduced ; 
but  no  act  was  passed  in  favor  of  either  of  these  measures. 

Although  Great  Britain  had  declined  the  offer  of  mediation  by  Kussia, 
an  offer  to  treat  of  peace,  at  London,  was  communicated  to  our  govern- 
ment; or,  if  some  other  place  should  be  preferred,  Gottenburg,  in 
Sweden,  was  proposed.  The  offer  was  readily  accepted,  and  Gottenburg 
was  chosen  as  the  place  of  meeting.  And  as  commissioners,  the  presi- 
dent nominated  (January  14),  Henry  Clay  and  Jonathan  Russell,  to  join 
Messrs.  Adams  and  Bayard,  whose  nomination  had  been  confirmed  at  the 
preceding  session.  Mr.  Russell  was  now  also  confirmed  as  minister  to 
Sweden.  On  the  8th  of  February,  Mr.  Gallatin,  still  in  Europe,  was 
again  nominated,  and  was  confirmed.  The  place  of  meeting,  however, 
was  changed  to  Ghent,  in  Belgium.  By  the  vessel  which-  brought  the 
offer  to  negotiate,  news  was  received  of  the  defeat  of  Bonaparte  at 
Leipsic,  which  was  thought  to  have  had  some  influence  in  determining 
the  president's  acceptance  of  the  offer  to  negotiate. 

This  news  from  Europe  was  succeeded,  in  June,  by  that  of  the  abdi- 
cation of  Napoleon  and  the  restoration  of  the  Bourbons ;  and  induced 
the  president  to  send  new  instructions  to  the  commissioners.  Instead  of 
insisting  on  security  against  impressment,  as  they  had  been  first  instructed, 
they  might,  if  peace  could  not  be  had  upon  other  terms,  waive  the  ques- 
tion of  impressment,  and  leave  it  for  future  negotiation.  On  the  sea, 
where  it  was  apprehended  we  should  be  least  able  to  cope  with  the  enemy, 
we  had  been  most  successful.  Many  brilliant  victories  had  been  achieved 
by  our  navy.  On  the  lakes,  our  fleets  had  been  signally  triumphant- 
Yet,  a  large  portion  of  our  Atlantic  coast  being  in  a  state  of  blockade, 
our  coasting  trade  was  seriously  obstructed.  The  operations  of  our 
army  had  not  been  attended  with  equal  success.  They  had  been  such  as 
to  inspire  little  hope  of  effecting  the  conquest  of  Canada,  which,  if  it 
were  not,  as  the  federalists  charged  that  it  was,  a  motive  to  the  declara- 
tion of  war,  had  since  become  one  of  its  chief  objects.  Several  inva- 
sions had  been  made  with  this  view ;  but,  although  in  a  number  of  en- 
gagements our  arms  had  been  victorious,  the  acquisition  of  these  British 
provinces  was  next  to  hopeless.  Besides,  the  peace  of  Europe  had  re- 
leased large  portions  of  the  British  naval  and  military  forces,  which 
were  about  to  be  sent  over  to  serve  in  the  American  war.  Perhaps  also 
the  state  of  the  national  finances  and  currency  contributed  to  the  indis- 


268  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

position  of  our  government  to  protract  a  war  in  wliicli  we  were,  in  all 
probability,  soon  to  exchange  our  offensive  position  for  one  of  defense ; 
preparations  being  in  progress,  as  was  supposed,  for  an  invasion  of  tbe 
United  States. 

In  the  month  of  August,  1814,  a  British  army  of  between  4,000  and 
5,000  men  under  Gen,  Ross,  ascended  the  Potomac  to  Washington, 
burned  the  capitol  and  other  public  buildings,  including  the  president's 
house,  and  retreated.  The  president  and  his  secretaries,  to  avoid  capture, 
fled  from  the  city.  The  want  of  due  preparation  to  defend  the  seat  of 
Government,  was  owing  to  a  culpable  negligence  on  the  part  either  of 
the  president  or  of  General  Armstrong,  then  secretary  of  war,  or  both. 
Though  not  entirely  defenseless,  the  forces  were  inadequate  to  a  success- 
ful resistance. 

On  the  19th  of  September,  the  13th  congress  commenced  its  3d  ses- 
sion. It  had  been  convened  by  the  president  before  the  day  (the  last  Mon- 
day of  October)  fixed  at  the  last  session.  In  his  message,  the  president 
assigned  as  a  reason  for  having  convened  congress  before  the  appointed 
time,  "  as  well  that  any  inadequacy  in  the  existing  wants  of  the  treasury 
might  be  supplied,  as  that  no  delay  might  happen  in  providing  for  the 
result  of  the  negotiation,  on  foot  with  Great  Britain,  whether  it  should 
require  arrangements  adapted  to  a  return  of  peace,  or  further  and  more 
effective  provisions  for  prosecuting  the  war."  He  regarded  the  repeal 
of  the  order  in  council,  and  the  general  pacification  in  Europe,  which 
had  withdrawn  the  occasion  for  impressments  from  American  vessels,  as 
favoring  the  expectations  that  peace  might  be  reestablished,  while  the 
rejection  of  the  offer  of  mediation,  the  delay  in  preparing  for  the  negoti- 
ation proposed  by  Great  Britain  herself,  and  the  manner  in  which  the 
war  was  then  conducted,  indicated  a  hostility  more  violent  than  ever. 
In  speaking  of  the  events  of  the  war,  he  mentions  "  the  splendid  victo- 
ries" and  "  the  most  unfading  laurels"  gained  by  Brown,  Scott,  and 
Gaines,  and  "  the  bold  and  skillful  operations  of  major-general  Jack- 
son." He  noticed  the  enterprises  of  the  enemy  against  the  metropolis 
and  Alexandria,  ''  from  both  of  which  his  retreats  were  as  precipitate  as 
his  attempts  were  bold  and  fortunate;"  and  the  success  of  our  arms  at 
Plattsburg,  and  our  victories  on  the  waters,  were  made  a  subject  of 
congratulation. 

The  president  also  recommended  farther  provisions  for  increasing  the 
army  and  for  furnishing  the  necessary  pecuniary  supplies.  The  situa- 
tion of  the  country  called  for  its  greatest  efforts.  The  enemy,  he  said, 
was  powerful  in  men  and  money,  on  the  land  and  on  the  water.  Avail- 
ing himself  of  fortuitous  advantages,  he  was  aiming  with  his  undivided 
force  a  deadly  blow  to  our  growing  prosperity,  perhaps  at  our  national 
existence. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.   •  269 

Measures  were  accordingly  adopted  by  congress  to  prosecute  the  war 
with  vigor.  The  purchase  or  building  of  additional  war  vessels  was 
authorized ;  and  provision  was  made  for  filling  the  ranks  of  the  army, 
and  for  otherwise  increasing  it.  In  aid  of  the  treasury,  an  additional 
loan  of  three  millions  was  authorized ;  duties  on  carriages,  distilled 
spirits,  and  on  other  domestic  manufactures,  were  increased  ;  and  duties 
were  laid  on  household  furniture  and  gold  and  silver  watches.  Also  a 
direct  tax  of  six  millions  was  laid. 

On  the  15th  of  December,  1814,  was  held  that  famed  assemblage,  the 
Hartford  Convention.  It  was  long  supposed,  and  indeed  the  opinion  is 
to  some  extent  still  entertained,  that  the  designs  of  this  convention  were 
treasonable,  or,  at  least,  that  it  contemplated  a  dissolution  of  the  union. 
As  the  proceedings  of  this  convention  were  conducted  within  closed 
doors,  the  public  have  no  other  means  of  information  respecting  their 
character  than  the  account  of  them  as  published  by  order  of  the  conven- 
tion itself,  and  more  recently,  (in  1833,)  a  history  of  that  convention  by 
its  secretary,  Theodore  Dwight.  In  the  absence  of  any  other  evidence 
against  the  unlawful  designs  of  that  body  than  the  suspicious  circum- 
stances under  which,  and  the  particular  juncture  at  which,  it  was  held, 
we  are  compelled  to  rely  tor  facts  on  the  statements  of  those  who  wit- 
nessed its  deliberations. 

The  general  object  of  the  convention  was  a  redress  of  grievances. 
One  ground  of  complaint  was  the  law  passed  at  the  preceding  session, 
"  making  further  provision  for  filling  the  ranks  of  the  army  of  the  United 
States."  This  law  authorized  the  recruiting  ofl&cers  to  enlist  into  the 
army  any  free,  effective,  able  bodied  men  between  the  ages  of  eighteen 
and  fifty  years.  It  also  repealed  the  provisions  of  former  acts  requiring 
the  consent  in  writing  of  parents  or  guardians  for  the  enlistment  of 
minors ;  provided  masters  of  apprentices  who  were  enlisted  should  receive 
a  portion  of  the  bounty  money.  Parents  were  unwilling  that  their 
children  should  be  taken  from  under  parental  care,  and  placed  in  the 
contaminating  atmosphere  of  an  army.  This  mode  of  supplying  the 
army  by  conscription,  as  it  was  called,  or  drafting,  they  objected  to. 
They  claimed  it  as  a  state  right  to  raise  men  in  their  own  way ;  and 
denied  the  right  of  the  general  government  either  to  prescribe  the  mode 
of  enlistment,  or  to  sever  the  connection  established  by  law  between 
parents  and  children,  or  masters  and  apprentices. 

The  secretary  in  his  history  of  the  convention,  says :  ''  The  situation 
of  the  New  England  states  was  in  the  highest  degree  critical  and  dan- 
gerous. The  services  of  the  militia,  for  two  years,  had  been  extremely 
severe ;  they  were  constantly  taken  from  their  farms  and  their  ordinary 
occupations,  and  in   addition  to  all  the  losses  which  such  a  state  must 


270  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN, 

necessarily  produce,  they  were  subjected  to  the  hardships  and  hazards  of 
a  camp,  and  the  life  of  a  soldier.  In  the  meantime,  the  United  States 
had  withheld  all  supplies  for  the  maintenance  of  the  militia  for  the  year 
1814,  both  in  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  and  thus  forced  upon  the 
states  the  burden  of  supporting  the  troops  employed  in  defending  their 
coasts  from  invasion,  and  their  towns  from  being  sacked  and  pillaged. 
*  *  *  It  had  become  perfectly  apparent,  that  if  the  New  England  states 
were  rescued  from  the  effects  of  these  calamities  at  all,  it  must  depend, 
as  far  as  human  means  were  concerned,  upon  their  own  exertions,  and 
that  they  could  not  place  the  least  dependence  on  the  national  govern- 
ment. Indeed,  they  had  been  repeatedly  told  that  such  was  the  state 
cf  things  by  the  national  government." 

In  October,  a  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  legislature  of  Massachu- 
setts for  the  appointment  of  twelve  delegates  "  to  meet  and  confer  with 
delegates  from  the  other  New  England  states,  or  any  other,  upon  the 
subject  of  their  public  grievances  and  concerns;  and  upon  the  best 
means  of  preserving  our  resources ;  and  of  defense  against  the  enemy ; 
and  to  devise  and  suggest  for  adoption  by  those  respective  states,  such 
measures  as  they  may  deem  expedient ;  "  &c.  A  letter  was  also  pre- 
pared and  addressed  to  the  governors  of  the  several  states,  accompanying 
the  above  resolution,  and  extending  the  invitation  to  their  legislatures 
to  appoint  delegates  to  the  proposed  convention,  the  object  of  which  was 
to  devise,  if  practicable,  means  of  security  and  defense  which  may  be 
consistent  with  the  preservation  of  their  resources  from  total  ruin,  and 
adapted  to  their  local  situation,  mutual  relations  and  habits,  and  not 
repugnant  to  their  obligations  as  members  of  the  union."  Another  ob- 
ject was  to  procure  such  amendments  of  the  national  constitution  as 
should  secure  to  them  equal  advantage. 

Formal  action  was  taken  upon  this  communication  by  the  legislatures 
of  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  and  delegates  were  appointed.  The 
people  of  the  counties  of  Grafton  and  Cheshire,  in  New  Hampshire,  and 
those  of  the  county  of  Windham,  in  Vermont,  also  appointed  delegates. 
The  convention  was  in  session  from  the  15th  of  December,  1814,  till 
the  5th  of  January,  1815.  George  Cabot,  of  Massachusetts,  was  chosen 
president,  and  Theodore  Dwight,  secretary.  Mr.  Dwight's  name  is  not 
in  the  list  of  members.     The  following  is  the  list : 

From  Massachusetts  :  George  Cabot,  Nathan  Dane,  William  Prescott, 
Harrison  Gray  Otis,  Timothy  Bigelow,  Joshua  Thomas,  Stephen  Long- 
fellow, Jun.,  Daniel  Waldo,  Hodij ah  Baylies. 

From  Connecticut :  Chauncey  Goodrich,  John  Treadwell,  James 
Hillhouse,  Zephauiah  Swift,  Nathaniel  Smith,  Calvin  Goddard,  Roger 
Minot  Sherman. 


HARTFORD    CONVENTION.  271 

From  Rhode  Island  :  Daniel  Lyman,  Samuel  Ward,  Edward  Manton, 
Benjamin  Hazard. 

From  New  Hampshire :  Benjamin  West)  Mills  Olcott. 

From  Vermont :  William  Hall,  Jun. 

The  result  of  the  deliberations  of  the  convention  was  embodied  in  a 
report  of  great  length,  which  concludes  with  four  resolutions  and  seven 
proposed  amendments  to  the  constitution. 

The  first  resolution  recommended  to  the  states  the  adoption  of  mea- 
sures to  protect  their  citizens  against  forcible  drafts,  conscriptions,  or 
impressments  not  authorized  by  the  constitution.  The  second^  recom- 
mended application  to  the  general  government  for  consent  that  the 
states  represented  in  this  convention  might  separately  or  in  concert  de- 
fend themselves  against  the  enemy.  The  third^  recommended  state  laws 
authorizing  the  governors  or  commanders-in-chief  of  their  militia  to  make 
detachments  from  the  same,  or  to  form  voluntary  corps,  and  to  cause 
them  to  be  well  armed  and  disciplined,  and  ready  for  service,  &c.  The 
fourth,  recommended  to  the  states  represented  in  that  convention  certain 
amendments  to  be  by  them  proposed  for  adoption  by  the  state  legisla- 
tures, &c.     The  amendments  were  as  follows  : 

1.  Excluding  slaves  from  the  basis  on  which  representatives  and 
direct  taxes  are  apportioned. 

2.  Requiring,  in  the  admission  of  new  states,  the  concurrence  of  two- 
thirds  of  both  houses. 

3.  Prohibiting  congress  from  laying  an  embargo  for  more  than  sixty 
days. 

4.  Prohibiting  congress  from  interdicting  commercial  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations,  without  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  both  houses. 

5.  Requiring  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  to  declare  war,  or  author- 
ize acts  of  hostility  against  any  foreign  nation,  except  in  defense  and  in 
cases  of  actual  invasion. 

6.  Making  ineligible  to  any  civil  office  under  the  general  government, 
any  person  thereafter  naturalized. 

7.  The  president  to  be  eligible  only  for  a  single  term ;  and  not  to  be 
chosen  two  terms  in  succession  from  the  same  state. 

Then  followed  a  resolution,  that,  if  the  application  recommended  in 
the  second  of  the  foregoing  resolutions  should  be  unsuccesijful,  and  peace 
should  not  be  concluded,  and  the  defense  of  these  states  should  be 
neglected  as  it  had  been  since  the  commencement  of  the  war,  it  would 
be  expedient  for  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states  to  appoint  dele- 
gates to  another  convention,  to  meet  at  Boston  on  the  third  Tuesday 
of  June  next,  with  such  powers  and  instructions  as  the  exigency  of  a 
crisis  so  momentous  might  require. 


272  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

A  committee  was  also  appointed,  authorized  to  call  another  meeting 
of  this  convention  before  that  time,  if  it  should  be  deemed  necessary. 

When,  in  1819,  the  original  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  this  con- 
vention was  placed  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  state  in  Boston,  it 
was  duly  certified  by  the  president,  Mr.  Cabot,  to  be  a  faithful  and 
complete  record  of  all  the  motions,  resolutions,  votes,  and  proceedings 
of  that  convention. 

The  state  of  the  national  finances,  as  presented  to  congress  at  its 
meeting  in  September,  1814,  by  the  new  secretary  of  the  treasury,  Mr. 
Campbell,  was  by  no  means  gratifying.  Stock  had  been  issued  for 
about  half  of  the  twenty-five  million  loan  authorized  at  the  preceding 
session,  and  only  about  80  per  cent,  had  been  received  for  the  same ; 
that  is  to  say,  the  government  was  obliged  to  sell  its  obligations  on 
interest  at  six  per  cent,  at  a  discount  of  20  per  cent.  About  one-half 
of  eight  millions  of  treasury  notes  outstanding,  together  with  other 
sums,  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  about  twenty-five  millions,  would 
be  drawn  for  upon  the  treasury  within  the  year;  of  which  all  but  about 
nine  millions  was  to  be  provided  for. 

In  addition  to  the  loan  of  three  millions,  and  the  duties  above  men- 
tioned, an  act,  in  further  aid  of  the  treasury,  was  passed,  for  the  issue 
of  treasury  notes  in  lieu  of  such  portion  of  the  twenty-five  million  loan 
authorized  at  the  preceding  session,  and  the  three  million  loan  autho- 
rized at  the  present  session,  as  had  not  yet  been  obtained  •  and  for  the 
further  sum  of  three  millions  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  war  depart- 
ment for  the  present  year. 

Most  of  the  banks,  except  those  of  New  England,  had  suspended 
specie  payments,  caused,  in  part,  by  the  drain  of  specie  to  pay  for 
foreign  goods,  chiefly  British,  which  had  been  brought  into  the  country 
clandestinely,  and  under  false  colors.  Mr.  Campbell  having  resigned 
immediately  after  making  his  report  to  congress,  Alexander  Dallas,  of 
Philadelphia,  was  appointed  in  his  place.  Mr.  Dallas  proposed  a  plan 
of  a  huge  national  bank,  with  a  capital  of  fift'i/  millions^  to  consist  of  five 
millions  of  specie,  and  the  residue  of  government  stock ;  the  govern- 
ment itself  to  subscribe  two-fifths  of  its  capital,  to  appoint  a  part  of 
the  directors,  and  to  have  power  to  authorize  a  suspension  of  specie 
payments  !  Another  of  its  provisions  required  it  to  loan  to  the  govern- 
ment thirty  millions.  This  scheme  of  a  bank — so  necessary  was  some 
institution  of  the  kind  considered  at  that  particular  crisis — received 
the  favor  of  the  administration.  So  obnoxious,  however,  was  it  to  Mr. 
Calhoun  and  some  other  republicans,  that  he  proposed  a  counter  pro- 
ject :  a  bank  with  a  capital  of  fifty  millions,  to  consist  of  six  millions 
of  specie,  and  forty-four  millions  of  treasury  notes  ;  the  government  to 


BANK    PROJECTS.  273 

hold  no  stock  in  the  hank,  no  control  in  its  direction,  nor  any  legal 
right  to  demand  loans  from  the  hank.  This  plan  was  carried  in  the 
house  hy  a  large  majority,  the  federalists  voting  in  favor  of  it. 

The  house  having  subsequently  requested  Mr.  Dallas's  opinion  as  to 
the  effect  of  the  issue  of  a  large  amount  of  treasury  notes  receivable  in 
subscriptions  to  the  bank,  he  gave  it  as  his  opinion,  that  it  wouid  have 
an  injurious  effect  upon  the  credit  of  the  government,  and  upon  the 
prospects  of  a  loan  for  1815;  and  also  that  it  would  be  difi&cult,  if  not 
impossible,  to  get  so  large  an  amount  as  forty-four  millions  of  such 
notes  into  circulation.  After  this  letter  was  read,  the  question  was 
taken  on  the  third  reading  of  the  bill,  and  lost,  45  to  107;  the  feder- 
alists now  voting  against  the  bill. 

A  bill  on  the  plan  of  Dallas  was  then  introduced  into  the  senate,  and 
passed.  In  the  house  it  was  violently  opposed,  and,  having  undergone 
some  amendments,  and  the  question  being  taken  on  its  passage,  the  vote 
stood,  81  in  its  favor,  and  80  against  it.  The  speaker,  Mr.  Chevcs, 
availed  himself  of  his  right  to  vote  in  two  cases;  and,  after  having 
given  his  reasons  for  opposing  the  bill,  considering  it  a  "  dangerous, 
unexampled,  and  desperate  resort,"  he  voted  in  the  negative,  producing 
a  tie;  and  then  declared  the  bill  to  be  lost.  A  reconsideration  was  then 
moved  and  carried ;  and  a  compromise  bill  was  reported  by  a  select 
committee,  and  adopted.  The  bank  was  to  have  a  capital  of  thirty 
millions;  to  be  composed  of  specie,  five  millions;  of  treasury  notes 
fifteen  millions ;  and  of  government  stock,  five  millions.  There  was  to 
be  no  compulsory  loan  to  the  government,  nor  provision  to  suspend 
specie  payments.  After  an  ineffectual  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  senate 
to  substitute  a  clause  authorizing  the  president  to  suspend — the  house 
refusing  to  concur — the  bill  passed,  but  was  vetoed  by  the  president, 
January  30,  1815. 

No  objection  was  made  by  the  president  to  the  bill  on  the  ground  of 
the  want  of  constitutional  authority  to  establish  a  bank ;  the  validity 
of  such  an  institution  having  been  repeatedly  recognized  by  "  acts  of 
the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  branches  of  the  government, 
accompanied  by  indications,  in  different  modes,  of  a  concurrence  of  the 
general  will  of  the  nation."  But,  he  said,  ''  the  proposed  bank  does  not 
appear  to  be  calculated  to  answer  the  purposes  of  reviving  the  public 
credit,  of  providing  a  national  medium  of  circulation,  and  of  aiding  the 
treasury  by  facilitating  the  indispensable  anticipations  of  the  revenue, 
and  by  affording  to  the  public  more  durable  loans." 

Still  another  bank  bill,  on  the  principle  of  Dallas's  plan,  was  origi- 
nated in  the  senate,  by  Mr.  Barbour,  which  passed  that  body,  but  was 
indefinitely  postponed  in  the  house  by  a  majority  of  one  vote. 

18 


274  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


CHAPTEK  XIX. 

PEACE    WITH    GREAT    BRITAIN. GENERAL    JACKSON  AND    MARTIAL  LAW  AT 

NEW^  ORLEANS. PROTECTIVE     TARIFF. BANK. COMPENSATION,    NAVI^ 

GATION,  NEUTRALITY,  AND    OTHER    ACTS. 

The  first  account  of  the  progress  of  negotiations  at  Ghent,  was 
unfavorable.  The  British  commissioners,  lord  Grambier,  Henry  Goul- 
buru,  and  William  Adams,  did  not  arrive  until  the  6th  of  August. 
Dispatches  dated  the  12th,  were  communicated  to  congress  the  10th  of 
October.  As  an  indispensable  condition  of  a  treaty  of  peace,  the  British 
commissioners  were  instructed  to  require,  that  their  Indian  allies  should 
be  included  in  the  pacification,  and  that  a  definite  boundary  between  them 
and  the  United  States  should  be  settled ;  with  the  intention,  on  their 
part,  that  the  Indian  territories  should  be  a  barrier  between  the  United 
States  and  Canada  :  and  the  United  States  were  to  be  prohibited  from 
purchasing  those  territories.  Extravagant  as  this  demand  was,  it  was 
not  less  so  than  another,  designed  to  strengthen  this  barrier — our  relin- 
quishment of  the  right  to  maintain  military  posts  on  the  lakes,  or  to 
keep  armed  vessels  on  them. 

Other  subjects  were  mentioned  which  they  thought  proper  to  discuss  ; 
none  of  which,  however,  were  to  be  made  a  sine  qua  non  of  a  treaty. 
One  was  the  forcible  seizure  of  mariners  from  on  board  merchant  ships 
on  the  high  seas,  and,  in  connection  with  it,  the  right  of  the  king  of 
Great  Britain  to  the  allegiance  of  all  his  native  subjects.  Another  was 
the  revision  of  the  boundary  line  between  the  United  States  and  the 
British  territories.  And  another  was  the  fisheries.  It  was  intended  to 
refuse  the  privilege  formerly  granted  by  treaty,  of  fishing  within  the  ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain,  without  an  equivalent. 

The  American  commissioners  stated  that,  upon  the  subjects  of  impress- 
ment and  boundary  they  were  authorized  to  treat ;  but  as  the  Indian 
and  fishery  questions  had  not  been  in  dispute  between  the  two  govern- 
ments, they  had  not  been  anticipated  by  our  government,  and,  conse- 
quently, in  relation  to  them  they  had  no  instructions.  Our  commission- 
ers mentioned  as  additional  subjects  suitable  for  discussion:  1.  A  defi- 
nition of  blockade,  and  of  other  neutral  and  belligerent  rights.  2.  Cer- 
tain claims  of  indemnity  to  individuals  for  captures  and  seizures,  pre- 
ceding and  subsequent  to  the  war ;  besides  several  others,  to  be  con- 
sidered in  case  of  a  propitious  termination  of  the  present  conferences. 

The  extravagant  and  even  humiliating  terms  which  were  exacted  by 


PEACE  WITH    GREAT    BRITAIN.  275 

tlie  British  government,  and  to  whicli  no  one  could  believe  our  govern- 
ment would  ever  accede,  nearly  extinguished  all  hope  of  peace,  and 
served  to  stimulate  congress  to  a  more  effective  preparation  for  the 
prosecution  of  the  war.  After  a  suspense  of  several  months,  on  the 
11th  of  February,  1815,  a  vessel  arrived  at  New  York  bringing  the 
news  of  PEACE,  and  bearing  the  treaty  itself,  ratified  by  the  British  gov- 
ernment. The  intelligence  spread  rapidly  throughout  the  country,  and 
was  everywhere  received  with  exclamations  of  joy.  It  was  ratified  at 
Washington  the  1 7th  of  February,  and  proclaimed  the  next  day  by  the 
president. 

The  correspondence  between  the  American  and  British  commissioners, 
has  been  justly  regarded  as  highly  creditable  to  the  former,  being  charac- 
terized by  firmness,  moderation  and  ability.  As  to  the  comparative 
talent  of  the  antagonist  diplomatists,  the  results  of  the  negotiation  do 
not  furnish  infallible  evidence.  All  things  considered,  however,  there 
was  no  just  ground  of  complaint,  in  respect  to  the  management  of  the 
American  side  of  the  controversy.  It  is  indeed  a  singular  fact,  that  not 
one  of  the  declared  objects  of  the  war,  formed  an  essential  topic  of  dis- 
cussion in  this  negotiation  of  peace :  the  progress  and  result  of  which, 
as  drawn  from  the  correspondence,  is  thus  summarily  stated  by  Hildreth : 

"  The  weakness  of  the  British  possessions  in  North  America ;  the 
necessity  of  some  barrier  against  that  ambitious  spirit  of  annexation 
exhibited  in  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  the  threatened  conquest  of 
Canada,  and  the  constant  curtailment  of  the  Indian  territory :  these  had 
been  stated  by  the  British  commissioners,  at  the  opening  of  the  negotia- 
tions, as  grounds  of  their  claim  for  an  assignment  to  the  British  Indian 
allies  of  a  permanent  neutral  territory,  with  a  prohibition  to  the  United 
States  to  establish  fortresses  or  keep  ships  on  the  great  lakes.  The 
American  commissioners  had  protested,  in  reply,  against  this  attempted 
interference  with  the  Indians,  as  a  thing  which  the  policy  of  Great 
Britain  had  never  permitted  in  her  own  case,  and  as  contrary  to  the 
assurances  originally  given  of  a  disposition  to  treat  on  terms  of  perfect 
reciprocity.  They  denied,  with  emphasis,  that  the  conquest  of  Canada 
had  ever  been  a  declared  object  of  the  war ;  and  they  dwelt  on  the 
humane  disposition  of  their  government  toward  the  Indians,  protest- 
ing, also,  against  the  British  employment  of  Indian  auxiliaries.  Finally, 
after  some  pretty  sharp  controversy,  the  British  commissioners  had 
agreed  to  be  content  with  a  neutral  stipulationforpeace  with  the  Indians, 
the  tribes  still  actively  engaged  in  hostilities  at  the  close  of  the  war  to  be 
restored  to  the  same  position  in  which  they  had  stood  at  its  commence- 
ment. This  question  disposed  of  by  the  provisional  assent  of  the 
American  commissioners,  the  next  related  to  boundaries.     The  false  idea 


276  THE    A5IEK1CAX    STATES3IAx\. 

that  the  Mississippi  had  its  source  north  of  the  49  th  degree  of  latitude^ 
had  rendered  nugatory  the  provision  of  the  treaty  of  1783  as  to  the 
northern  boundary  of  the  United  States  west  of  the  Lake  of  the  "Woods. 
That  boundary,  indeed,  since  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  remained  to 
be  extended  far  to  the  west,  the  United  States  claiming,  under  that  ces- 
sion, even  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  The  provision  for  a  boundary  on  the 
northeast,  so  far  as  related  to  the  territory  between  the  head  of  the  St. 
Croix  and  the  head  of  the  Connecticut,  had  likewise  failed,  so  the  British 
commissioners  contended,  from  similar  geographical  ignorance ;  and,  as 
the  basis  of  a  new  arrangement,  they  had  suggested  that  each  party 
should  retain  what  he  held  at  the  signing  of  the  treaty.  To  this  the 
American  commissioners  had  refused  to  agree.  So  the  negotiation  had 
stood  by  the  latest  accounts  previous  to  the  arrival  of  the  treaty  of 
peace. 

"  The  treaty,  as  signed,  provided  for  the  mutual  restoration  of  all 
conquered  territory,  and  for  the  appointment  of  three  commissions  f 
one  to  settle  the  title  to  the  islands  in  Passamaquaddy  Bay,  another  to 
make  out  the  north-eastern  boundary  as  far  as  the  St.  Lawrence,  and  a 
third  to  run  the  line  through  the  St.  Lawrence  and  the  lakes  to  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods.  In  case  of  disagreement  in  either  commission, 
the  point  in  dispute  was  to  be  referred  to  some  friendly  power.  No 
provision  was  made  as  to  the  boundary  west  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods, 
nor  as  to  the  fishing  on  the  shores  of  British  America.  The  British 
commissioners  refused  to  accept,  in  return  for  this  right  of  fishing,  a 
modified  renewal  of  the  article  for  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  which, 
in  their  view,  was  also  terminated  by  the  war.  The  result,  therefore, 
was,  that,  instead  of  leaving  the  parties  where  they  began,  the  war  taok 
away  from  Great  Britain  a  nominal  right,  never  used,  of  navigating  the 
Mississippi,  and  from  the  New  England  fishermen  a  valuable  right, 
hitherto  used  from  the  earliest  times,  of  catching  and  curing  fish  on  the 
shores  of  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  the  loss  of  which  still  continues 
to  be  felt.  By  some  adroit  management,  the  English  commissioners 
were  induced  to  admit  into  the  treaty  a  clause  copied  from  that  of  1783, 
with  the  history  of  which  probably  they  were  not  familiar,  against 
carrying  away  "  any  negroes  or  other  property."  The  only  remaining 
article  related  to  the  slave  trade,  for  the  suppression  of  which,  as  irre- 
concilable with  the  principles  of  humanity  and  justice,  both  parties 
promised  to  use  their  best  endeavors." 

An  inquiry  here  naturally  suggests  itself.  As,  after  the  revocation 
of  the  British  orders  in  council,  impressment  was  the  only  grievance  to 
be  redressed  by  war;  and  as  that  question  was  subsequently  waived 
by  our  government  in  the  negotiation ;  what  was  gained  by  the  war  ? 


MARTIAL    LAW      AT   NEW    ORLEANS.  277 

It  has  been  considered  as  no  small  point  gained,  that  ample  evidence 
has  been  given  to  Great  Britain  of  our  capacity  successfully  to  resist 
her  power,  especially  upon  the  ocean,  where  she  had  long  claimed  a  vast 
superiority ;  and  that  a  guaranty  had  thus  been  furnished  against  future 
aggression.  It  is  questionable,  however,  if  the  result  could  have  been 
known,  or  if  the  unbiased  cpunsels  of  our  older  statesmen  had  prevailed, 
whether  war  would  have  been  declared.  Jefferson,  Madison,  Grail atin, 
Macon,  and  others,  were  of  a  pacific  disposition.  The  leading  men  of" 
the  administration  were  known  to  have  given  a  reluctant  sanction  to  the 
war  project ;  but  they  found  themselves  under  a  kind  of  necessity  to 
yield  to  the  impulsive  young  politicians,  Calhoun,  Clay,  and  a  number  of 
others,  who,  it  was  suspected,  were  striving  to  turn  the  popular  preju- 
dice against  Great  Britain,  to  their  own  political  advantage.  Whether 
the  nation  has  ever  obtained  an  equivalent  for  the  30,000  lives  and  the 
hundred  millions  of  money  expended;  for  the  loss  of  property  and 
several  years  of  prosperous  commerce  ]  for  the  depravation  of  the  public 
morals,  and  the  train  of  other  evils  inseparable  from  a  state  of  war ;  is 
a  question  which  at  least  admits  of  a  reasonable  doubt. 

On  the  20th  of  December,  Gen.  Jackson  proclaimed  martial  law  at 
New  Orleans.  On  the  5th  of  March,  an  order  was  issued,  stating,  that 
attempts  had  been  made,  under  specious  pretexts,  to  diminish  our  force 
by  seducing  French  inhabitants  from  their  duty ;  and  that  he  had,  on 
the  28th  ultimo,  ordered  all  French  subjects  having  certificates  of  the 
French  consul,  to  repair  to  the  interior,  not  short  of  Baton  Rouge,  until 
the  enemy  had  left  our  waters,  or  until  the  restoration  of  peace.  And 
he  now  enjoined  all  officers  and  soldiers  to  give  the  earliest  intelligence 
of  all  mutiny  or  sedition,  and  to  arrest  all  concerned  therein,  and  to 
confine  them  for  trial  agreeably  to  the  rules  and  articles  of  war.  On  the 
7th  he  inclosed  in  a  letter  to  "  Mr.  Le  Clerc,  printer,"  a  circular  from 
the  postmaster  general,  which,  he  said,  he  believed  to  be  genuine,  and 
which  placed  the  pleasing  intelligence  of  peace  almost  beyond  a  doubt. 
Martial  law,  however,  was  still  continued,  for  the  alleged  reason  that  he 
had  not  received  official  advice  of  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  of  peace. 
No  farther  danger  from  the  enemy  being  generally  apprehended,  the  con- 
tinuance of  martial  law,  which  began  to  be  complained  of,  was  made  the 
subject  of  animadversion  by  a  writer  in  one  of  the  newspapers,  whose 
name  the  publisher  was  compelled  to  disclose,  and  who  proved  to  be  a 
member  of  the  legislature,  named  Louallier,  who  was,  by  order  of  Gen. 
Jackson,  committed  to  prison  to  be  tried  by  a  military  court  for  his  life, 
on  a  charge  of  mutiny. 

On  application  to  judge  Hall,  of  the  United  States  district  court,  a 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  obtained  in  behalf  of  the  prisoner  ;  whereupon 


278  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  judge  was  himself  arrested  and  sent  out  of  the  city.  The  district 
attorney  having  applied  to  a  state  judge  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to 
release  judge  Hall,  he  also  was  imprisoned. 

In  his  answer  to  a  complimentary  address  of  the  city  battalion  of  uni- 
form companies,  the  general  took  occasion  to  vindicate  his  resistance  to 
the  civil  authority.  He  said  :  ''  In  declaring  martial  law,  his  object, 
and  his  only  object,  was  to  embody  the  whole  resources  of  the  country 
for  its  defense.  That  law,  while  it  existed,  necessarily  suspended  all 
rights  and  privileges  inconsistent  with  its  provisions."  He  maintained 
the  necessity  of  continuing  martial  law,  in  oider  to  prevent  his  ranks 
from  being  "  thinned  by  desertion^  and  his  whole  army  broken  to  pieces 
by  mutiny,  while  yet  a  powerful  force  of  the  enemy  remained  on  the 
coast,  and  within  a  few  hours  sail  of  the  city."  It  was  not  until  he  dis- 
covered that  the  civil  power  stood  no  longer  in  need  of  the  military  for 
its  support,  that  he  restored  to  it  its  usual  functions ;  and  the  restora- 
tion was  not  delayed  a  moment  after  that  period  had  arrived. 

After  the  militia  had  been  dismissed,  and  the  judge  had  returned  to 
the  city,  he  ordered  the  general  to  appear  before  him  to  show  cause  wh}' 
an  attachment  should  not  be  issued  against  him  for  contempt  in  refusing 
obedience  to  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  for  imprisoning  the  judge. 
The  general  appeared,  accordingly,  and  tendered  to  the  court,  in  his  de- 
fense, a  paper  protesting  against  the  proceedings  of  the  court  as  "  illegal^ 
unconstitutional,  and  informal,"  and  reserving  to  himself  the  benefit  of 
his  exceptions  to  them.  This  list  of  exceptions  was  followed  by  a  state- 
ment of  the  reasons  for  instituting  and  keeping  up  martial  law  ;  among 
which  were  letters  from  the  governor  of  Louisiana,  and  information  de- 
rived from  other  sources,  after  his  arrival  at  that  place,  putting  him  on 
his  guard  against  a  portion  of  the  inhabitants,  the  legislature,  and  foreign 
emissaries ;  many  of  the  people  being  disaffected  foreigners,  and  unwor- 
thy of  confidence.  The  militia  had  been  represented  as  insubordinate, 
encouraged  in  their  disobedience  by  the  legislature,  which  was  character- 
ized as  politically  rotten,  and  the  whole  state  dependent  mainly  on  the 
regular  troops  and  the  militia  from  other  states.  These  facts  justified, 
in  his  view,  the  institution  of  martial  law. 

In  regard  to  its  continuance  after  the  first  information  of  peace,  he- 
said,  the  numbers  of  the  enemy  still  quadrupled  all  the  regular  forces 
which  he  could  command ;  and  they  might  renew  their  attacks.  If  he 
had  revoked  his  proclamation,  or  ceased  to  act  under  it,  the  fatal  security 
into  which  they  had  been  lulled  would  have  destroyed  all  discipline,  dis- 
solved all  his  forces,  and  left  him  without  any  means  of  defense  against 
an  enemy  instructed  by  traitors  within  our  own  bosom  of  the  time  and 
place  at  which  an  attack  might  be  safely  made.     He  thought  the  peace 


MARTIAL  LAW  AT  NEW  ORLEANS.  279 

probable,  but  not  certain.  If  certain,  a  few  days  would  bring  the  official 
advice  of  it ;  and  he  thought  it  better  to  submit  during  these  few  days 
to  the  restraints  imposed,  than  to  put  the  country  at  risk  on  an  uncertain 
contingency. 

The  reading  of  the  defense  was  objected  to  by  the  opposite  counsel. 
The  judge  admitted  that  part  of  the  paper  which  related  to  the  legal 
points  of  defense,  but  debarred  the  reading  of  that  which  was  intended 
as  a  vindication  of  his  conduct.  After  considerable  discussion,  the  court 
a(jyourned  to  the  next  day,  (March  28,)  when  the  judge  read  an  opinion 
which  he  had  drawn  up,  containing  certain  points  of  objection  in  regard 
to  martial  law  and  the  suspension  ■  of  civil  jurisprudence,  and  declaring 
that  the  written  defense  could  not  be  legally  admitted.  After  the  hear- 
ings the  judge  decided  that  an  attachment  should  issue,  returnable  on 
the  3 1st,  when  the  general  appeared  without  his  counsel.  Being  told  by 
the  judge  that  there  were  interrogatories  to  be  propounded  to  him,  he 
replied  that  he  would  not  answer  them  ;  saying,  that  he  had  offered  a 
defense  which  had  been  refused ;  that  he  now  appeared  to  receive  the 
sentence  of  the  court,  and  had  nothing  further  to  add.  During  the  read- 
ing of  his  opinion,  the  judge  was  several  times  interrupted  by  the  general, 
who  at  one  time  said  :  "  Sir,  state  facts,  and  confine  yourself  to  them  : 
since  my  defense  has  been  precluded,  let  not  censure  constitute  a  part 
of  this  sought  for  punishment."  The  judge  sentenced  him  to  pay  a  fine 
of  $1,000,  for  which  he  drew  a  check  on  the  spot,  which  was  received  in 
discharge. 

On  leaving  the  court-house,  he  was  received  by  the  multitude  outside, 
with  acclamation,  and  seated  in  a  coach,  which  was  drawn  by  the  people 
to  a  public  house,  where  he  addressed  them  in  a  short  speech.  The 
amount  of  the  fine  was  immediately  raised  by  subscription,  and  paid 
over,  and  the  check  returned  without  having  been  presented.  It  has 
been  said  that  he  declined  to  receive  the  money,  which  is  probable,  from 
the  fact  that,  in  1844,  by  an  act  of  congress,  tl^e  thousand  dollars,  witii 
interest,  was  refunded. 

Peace  having  been  restored,  the  government  very  naturally  directed 
its  attention  to  the  adaptation  of  its  policy  to  our  altered  condition.  The 
general  peace  of  Europe,  no  less  than  the  restoration  of  peace  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  demanded  a  change  in  our  com- 
mercial regulations.  Permanent  provision  was  to  be  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  public  debt,  which  had  been  increased  by  the  war  to  about 
$120,000,000.  Importations  were  large,  and  must  rapidly  augment  our 
indebtedness  to  foreigners — the  more  so  as  the  peace  of  Euro23e  would 
greatly  lessen  the  demand  for  our  agricultural  products,  and'  seriously 
affect  our  carrying  trade.  A  similar  state  of  things  bad  not  existed 
since  the  establishment  of  the  government  under  the  constitution. 


280  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Therefore,  at  the  next  session  of  congress,  in  December,  1815,  the 
president  recommended  a  "  tariff  on  manufactures,"  with  reference,  both 
to  the  revenue  and  to  manufacturing  industry.  The  views  of  Mr. 
Madison  on  this  subject  were  thus  stated  : 

"  In  adjusting  the  duties  on  imports  to  the  object  of  revenue,  the  in- 
fluence of  the  tariff  on  manufactures  will  necessarily  present  itself  for  con- 
sideration. However  wise  the  theory  may  be  which  leaves  to  the  saga- 
city and  interest  of  individuals  the  application  of  their  industry  and  re- 
sources, there  are  in  this,  as  in  other  cases,  exceptions  to  the  general 
rule.  Besides  the  condition  which  the  theory  itself  implies  of  a  recipro- 
cal adoption  by  other  nations,  experience  teaches  that  so  many  circum- 
stances must  occur  in  introducing  and  maturing  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments, especially  of  the  more  complicated  kinds,  that  a  country  may 
remain  long  without  them,  although  sufl&ciently  advanced,  and  in  some 
respects  even  peculiarly  fitted  for  carrying  them  on  with  success.  Under 
circumstances  giving  a  powerful  impulse  to  manufacturing  industry,  it 
has  made  among  us  a  progress,  and  exhibited  an  efl&ciency,  which  justify 
the  belief  that  with  a  protection  not  more  than  is  due  to  the  enterprising 
citizens  whose  interests  are  now  at  stake,  it  will  become  at  an  early  day 
not  only  safe  against  occasional  competitions  from  abroad,  but  a  source 
of  domestic  wealth  and  even  of  external  commerce.  In  selecting  the 
branches  more  especially  entitled  to  the  public  patronage,  a  preference  is 
obviously  claimed  by  such  as  will  relieve  the  United  States  from  a  de- 
pendence on  foreign  supplies,  ever  subject  to  casual  failures,  for  articles 
necessary  for  the  public  defense,  or  connected  with  the  primary  wants  of 
individuals.  It  will  be  an  additional  recommendation  of  particular 
manufactures,  where  the  materials  for  them  are  extensively  drawn  from 
our  agriculture,  and  consequently  impart  and  insure  to  that  great  fund 
of  national  prosperity  and  independence  an  encouragement  which  can 
not  fail  to  be  rewarded." 

Mr.  Dallas,  secretary  of  the  treasury,  reported  to  congress  a  tarifi"  of 
duties  on  imports,  which,  with  some  modification,  became  a  law.  This 
may  be  regarded  as  the  commencement  of  what  is  called  the  protective 
sx'^stem  ;  which,  though  not  without  essential  modifications,  has  been  the 
established  policy  of  the  government  to  the  present  time.  The  duties 
imposed  by  Great  Britain  upon  cotton,  rendered  the  home  manufacture 
of  that  article  an  object  of  great  importance  to  the  cotton  producing 
states.  Hence,  Calhoun  and  Lowndes,  the  leading  members  from  South 
Carolina,  were  among  the  most  zealous  advocates  of  the  measure.  Mr. 
Clay,  also,  then  as  ev^  afterward,  took  a  strong  stand  in  favor  of  that 
system  ;  while  Webster  and  most  of  the  members  from  the  New  Eng- 
land states,  with  John  Randolph,  took  ground  against  it. 


PK.0TECT1VE    TARIFF. BANK.  281 

This  question  affords  a  striking  illustration  of  the  effect  of  personal 
interest,  real  or  imaginary,  pecuniary  or  political,  upon  the  opinions  of 
men.  The  change  of  position  on  this  subject  is  somewhat  remarkable. 
The  report,  in  1792,  of  Hamilton,  the  great  federal  leader,  whose 
schemes  of  finance  were  then  repudiated  by  his  political  opponents,  now 
furnished  the  democrats  with  arguments,  while  the  federalists  planted 
themselves  on  the  doctrines  of  free  trade.  The  positions  in  which  indi- 
viduals stood  in  1816,  were,  a  few  years  afterward,  entirely  reversed; 
each  still  advocating  his  new  position  on  the  general  'principle^  either  of 
free  trade  or  protection.  The  mercantile  class  were  generally  opposed 
to  the  system. 

The  duties  imposed  by  this  act  upon  the  most  important  articles, 
ranged  from  about  twenty  to  thirty-five  per  cent.  On  coarse  cottons, 
costing  twenty-five  cents  or  less,  which  must  all  be  deemed  to  have  cost 
twenty-five  cents  the  square  yard,  the  duty  was  twenty-five  per  cent. 
Oa  w^oolens  twenty -five  per  cent.  On  manufactures  of  hemp,  iron,  steel, 
brass,  copper,  &c.,  twenty  per  cent.  On  bar  iron,  $1  50  per  hundred 
weight.  On  nails,  spikes  and  bolts,  4  cents  per  pound.  On  window 
glass,  from  $2  50  to  $3  25  per  hundred  feet.  On  hemp,  $1  50  per 
hundred  weight.  On  spirits,  from  38  to  75  cents  per  gallon.  The  list 
of  articles  was  numerous ;  and  the  duties  varied  according  to  the 
measure  of  the  ability  of  the  country  to  supply  the  demand ;  those  of 
which  a  full  supply  of  the  domestic  article  could  be  furnished  being 
rated  higher  than  those  the  demand  for  which  could  be  supplied  only  in 
part,  or  could  not  be  produced  at  all.  The  internal  taxes,  or  duties  on 
domestic  manufactures  laid  during  the  war,  were  either  repealed  or. 
materially  reduced. 

Application  for  the  rechartering  of  the  first  bank,  had  been  made  in 
1810,  and  a  favorable  report  made  to  congress  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  secretary 
of  the  treasury  ;  but  at  too  late  a  period  of  the  session  to  be  acted  upon. 
The  application  was  renewed  the  next  year;  a  bill  was  introduced  into 
each  house  ;  and  after  an  arduous  contest,  the  bills  in  both  houses  were 
lost ;  that  of  the  house  having  been  indefinitely  postponed,  65  to  64 ; 
and  that  of  the  senate  having  had  its  enacting  clause  struck  out  by  the 
casting  vote  of  the  vice-president,  George  Clinton,  who  was  opposed  to 
the  bill,  not  on  the  ground  of  its  unconstitutionality,  but  on  account  of 
some  objectionable  provisions.  It  was  supported  by  Mr.  Crawford  and 
Mr.  Giles  ;  the  latter,  however,  voting  against  it  in  obedience  to  instruc- 
tions of  the  legislature  of  his  state,  (Virginia.)  It  was  opposed  by  Mr. 
Clay,  then  in  the  senate,  Mr.  Bayard,  and  others. 

Many  of  our  leading  statesmen  had  changed  their  views  on  the  subject 
of  a  national  bank  since  1811  ;  among  whom  was  Mr.  Clay,  now  (1816) 


282  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

a  member  of  tlie  house  and  again  its  speaker,  who  made  u  very  able 
speech  in  its  favor.  It  was  believed  that  a  bank  was  necessary  to  restore 
the  currency  to  its  former  healthy  state,  and  to  facilitate  the  financial 
operations  of  the  government.  The  vote  on  the  final  passage  of  the  bill 
in  the  house,  was  80  to  71.  It  became  a  law  on  the  10th  of  April.  Its 
capital  was  $35,000,000;  of  which  one-fifth  (7,000,000,)  was  to  be  sub- 
scribed by  the  government.  Of  the  sums  subscribed,  one-fifth  was  to  be 
paid  in  specie.  It  was  entitred  to  the  deposit  of  the  public  moneys,  and 
was  required  to  disburse  them  in  any  part  of  the  union  where  they  might 
be  wanted,  without  charge  to  the  government.  It  was  also  to  pay 
$1,500,000  as  a  bonus  for  its  charter.  Of  the  twenty-five  directors,  five 
were  to  be  appointed  by  the  president  with  the  consent  of  the  senate. 
The  deposits  were  removable  by  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  for  sufl5- 
cient  reasons,  to  be  laid  before  congress.  The  term  of  its  charter  was 
twenty  years. 

The  people  of  the  territory  of  Indiana  were  authorized  (April,  1816) 
to  form  a  constitution  and  state  government,  preparatory  to  admission 
into  the  union. 

A  joint  resolution  was  passed,  requiring  the  secretary  of  the  treasury 
to  cause,  as  soon  as  might  be,  all  taxes,  duties,  and  public  dues  to  be 
collected  and  paid  in  specie,  or  notes  of  specie-paying  banks,  or  treasury 
notes.  The  object  of  this  requisition  was  to  efi"ect  a  resumption  of  specie 
payments  by  the  banks,  which  took  place  at  the  commencement  of  the 
next  year. 

The  daily  compensation  of  members  of  congress,  which  was  six  dol- 
lars, was  changed  at  this  session  to  an  annual  salary  of  $1,500,  irrespec- 
tive of  the  length  of  the  sessions ;  the  usual  mileage  to  be  continued. 
Such  was  the  popular  clamor  against  this  bill,  as  to  induce  its  re- 
peal at  the  next  session,  (1817)  though  not  to  take  eff"ect  until  after  the 
expiration  of  the  session.  The  act  contained  a  proviso,  that  no  former 
act  should  be  revived  by  the  repeal.  Not  agreeing  upon  a  rate  of  com-, 
pensation  after  the  end  of  their  own  term,  the  matter  was  left  to  be  dis- 
posed of  by  their  successors. 

A  caucus  was  held  on  the  16th  of  March,  by  the  republican  members, 
to  nominate  a  successor  to  Mr.  Madison.  Mr.  Clay  moved  a  resolution 
that  it  was  inexpedient  to  make,  in  caucus,  any  recommendation  to  the 
people  of  candidates  for  president  and  vice-president,  which  was  nega- 
tived; as  was  another  by  John  W.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  declaring  the 
practice  of  making  such  nominations  by  members  of  congress,  to  be  in- 
expedient. A  ballot  having  been  taken,  it  appeared  that  James  Monroe 
had  65  votes,  and  William  H.  Crawford  58.  Daniel  D.  Tompkins, 
governor  of    New  York,  had   85  votes  for  vice-president,   and  Simon 


NAVIGATION,  NEUTRALITY,  AND    OTHER    ACTS.  283 

Snyder,  governor  of  Pennsylvania,  30.  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Tompkins 
were  declared  nominated  without  opposition. 

The  14th  congress  commenced  its  2d  session  December  2, 1816,  which 
terminated  with  Mr.  Madison's  presidential  term,  the  3d  of  March, 
1817. 

On  the  11th  of  December,  the  people  of  Indiana,  having,  in  conform- 
ity with  the  act  of  congress  at  the  preceding  session,  formed  a  state  con- 
stitution which  was  accepted  by  congress,  that  territory  was,  by  a  joint 
resolution,  admitted  as  a  state  into  the  union.  By  an  act  of  March  1, 
1817,  the  people  of  the  western  part  of  the  territory  of  Mississippi, 
were  authorized  to  form  a  constitution  and  state  government  with  a  view 
to  admission.  And  by  another  act,  the  eastern  part  of  the  territory  was 
to  constitute  a  separate  territory,  called  Alabama. 

Among  the  most  important  acts  of  this  session,  was  "  an  act  concern- 
ing  the  navigation  of  the  United  States."  In  consequence  of  the  discrimi- 
nations made  by  certain  European  nations  since  the  peace  in  favor  of 
their  own  navigation,  a  similar  policy  was  deemed  necessary  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States.  An  act  was  therefore  passed,  restricting  import- 
ations to  vessels  of  the  United  States,  and  to  foreign  vessels  owned  in 
the  country  of  which  the  goods  were  the  product  or  manufacture :  the 
regulation  to  apply  only  to  the  vessels  of  those  nations  which  had 
adopted  a  similar  regulation.  For  a  violation  of  the  law,  vessel  and 
goods  were  forfeited.  The  coasting  trade  was  restricted  to  vessels 
owned  wholly  by  our  own  citizens,  under  a  penalty  of  the  forfeiture  of  the 
goods.  And  to  encourage  the  employment  of  American  seamen,  coast- 
ing vessels  not  having  crews  of  whom  three-fourths  were  Americans, 
were  to  be  subject  to  a  duty  of  fifty  cents  a  ton,  instead  of  six  cents,  as 
in  other  cases. 

By  an  act  to  provide  for  the  redemption  of  the  public  debt,  $10,000,000 
from  the  proceeds  of  the  duties  on  imports  and  tonnage,  of  internal  du- 
ties, and  of  the  public  land  sales,  was  to  be  appropriated  annually  to 
the  sinking  fund. 

Spain  having  complained  that  aid  had  been  given  by  citizens  of  the 
United  States  to  the  insurrections  in  Texas  and  Mexico,  a  general  law 
was  passed  against  fitting  out  vessels  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  to  aid  or  cooperate  in  any  warlike  measure  against  any 
friendly  power;  imposing  as  a  penalty  for  its  violation,  a  fine  not 
exceeding  $10,000,  and  imprisonment  not  exceeding  ten  years. 

The  president  had,  in  his  annual  message  to  congress  at  the  preceding 
session,  recommended  to  the  consideration  of  congress  the  subject  of 
internal  improvement.  A  bill  creating  a  fund  for  this  purpose,  to  con- 
sist of  the  bonus  to  be  paid  by  the  bank,  and  the  dividends  of  tlie  gov- 


2 Si  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

enimeiit  stock  in  the  same,  was  passed,  in  the  house,  86  to  84 ;  in  tho 
senate  20  to  15;  but  was  vetoed  by  the  president,  for  the  reason  that 
appropriations  for  that  object  were  unauthorized  by  the  constitution. 
The  leader  in  this  measure  was  Mr.  Calhoun,  then  a  latitudinarian  in 
his  views  of  constitutional  power. 


CHAPTEK   XX. 

ELECTION   AND  INAUGURATION    OF    MR.    MONROE. CORRESPONDENCE    WITH 

GEN.    JACKSON. CABINET    APPOINTMENTS. PRESIDENT'S    TOUR. 

At  the  presidential  election  in  1816,  there  was  little  opposition  to  the 
republican  candidates.  Of  the  votes  of  the  presidential  electors,  Mr. 
Monroe  and  Mr.  Tompkins  received  each  183;  and  34  were  given  to 
Rufus  King,  the  federal  candidate  for  president,  and  about  the  same 
number  were  scattered  upon  a  number  of  persons  for  vice-president. 

Mr,  Monroe  was  inaugurated  on  the  4th  of  March,  1817,  with  the 
usual  ceremonies.  A  prominent  subject  of  his  inaugural  address  was 
the  national  defense.  With  respect  to  securing  the  country  against 
foreign  dangers,  his  ideas  seem  to  have  gone  beyond  those  of  his  two 
immediate  predecessors.  "  To  put  our  extensive  coast  in  such  a  state 
of  defense  as  to  secure  our  cities  and  interior  from  invasion,"  he  said, 
''  would  be  attended  with  expense ;  but  the  work,  when  finished,  would 
be  permanent ;  and  it  was  fair  to  presume,  that  a  single  campaign  of 
invasion  by  a  naval  force  superior  to  our  own,  aided  by  a  few  thousand 
land  troops,  would  expose  us  to  a  greater  expense,  without  taking  into 
the  estimate  the  loss  of  property  and  distress  of  our  citizens,  than 
would  be  sufficient  for  the  great  work."  "  Our  land  and  naval  forces 
should  be  adequate  to  the  necessary  purposes  ;  the  former  to  garrison 
our  fortifications,  and  to  meet  the  first  invasions  of  a  foreign  foe;  the 
latter,  retained  within  the  limits  proper  to  a  state  of  peace,  might  aid 
in  maintaining  the  neutrality  of  the  United  States,  with  dignity  in  the 
wars  of  other  powers,  and  in  saving  the  property  of  their  citizens  from 
spoliation." 

Respecting  the  encouragem.ent  of  home  industry,  he  said  : 

"  Our  manufactures  will  likewise  require  the  systematic  and  fostering 
care  of  the  government.  Possessing,  as  we  do,  all  the  raw  materials, 
the  fruit  of  our  own  soil  and  industry,  we  ought  not  to  depend  in  the 
degree  we  have  done  on  supplies  from  other  countries.  While  we  are 
thus  dependent,  the  sudden  event  of  war,  unsought  and  unexpected,  can 


MR.  Monroe's  inaugural.  285 

not  fail  to  plunge  us  into  the  most  serious  difficulties.  It  is  important, 
too,  that  the  capital  which  nourishes  our  manufactures  should  be  domes- 
tic, as  its  influence  in  that  case,  instead  of  exhausting,  as  it  may  do  in 
foreign  hands,  would  be  felt  advantageously  on  agriculture,  and  every 
other  branch  of  industry.  Equally  important  is  it  to  provide  at  home 
a  market  for  our  raw  materials,  as  by  extending  the  competition,  it  will 
enhance  the  price  and  protect  the  cultivator  against  the  casualties  inci- 
dent to  foreign  markets." 

As  the  best  means  of  preserving  our  liberties,  he  said,  "  let  us  pro- 
mote intelligence  among  the  people.  It  is  only  when  the  people  become 
ignorant  and  corrupt,  when  they  degenerate  into  a  populace,  that  they 
are  incapable  of  exercising  the  sovereignty.  The  people  themselves 
become  the  willing  instruments  of  their  own  debasement  and  ruin." 

Mr.  Monroe  entered  upon  the  duties  of  his  office  under  auspicious 
circumstances.  The  nation  was  at  peace ;  and,  although  negotiations 
with  Spain  were  still  pending,  there  was  no  apprehension  of  an  interrup- 
tion of  our  amicable  relations  with  any  foreign  power.  The  return  of 
peace  had  been  succeeded  by  a  political  calm.  The  federal  party  as  an 
organization,  was  defunct,  beyond  the  hope  of  resuscitation :  and  not 
the  least  cheering  reflection  was,  that  his  administration  would  escape 
the  embarrassments  of  a  powerful  party  opposition  which  had  been 
experienced  by  all  former  administrations.  Says  the  address  :  ^'  Equally 
gratifying  is  it  to  witness  the  increased  harmony  of  opinion  which  per- 
vades the  union.  Discord  does  not  belong  to  our  system.  Union  is 
recommended,  as  well  by  the  ft-ee  and  benign  principles  of  our  govern- 
ment, extending  its  blessings  to  every  individual,  as  by  the  other  eminent 
advantages  attending  it."  He  adds :  "  To  promote  this  harmony  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  of  our  government,  and  in  a  manner  to 
give  them  the  most  complete  effect,  and  to  advance,  in  all  other  respects, 
the  best  interests  of  our  country,  will  be  the  object  of  my  constant  and 
zealous  exertions." 

From  the  liberal  and  conciliatory  spirit  indicated  by  the  inaugural 
address  toward  those  who  differed  from  him  in  their  political  opinions,  it 
was  inferred  by  some,  that,  in  the  bestowment  of  patronage,  Mr.  Monroe 
intended  to  make  no  discrimination.  That  such  was  not  his  intention, 
however,  appears  both  from  his  practice  and  from  his  correspondence 
with  Gen.  Jackson,  which,  though  it  took  place  at  that  time,  was  not 
published  until  many  years  afterward.  Immediately  after  the  presiden- 
tial election,  and  before  the  electors  had  yet  cast  their  votes,  Gen.  Jack- 
son, in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Monroe,  recommended  the  course  above  suggested. 
xVs  the  advice  contained  in  that  letter  appears  to  have  been  prompted  by 
a  truly  magnanimous  and  patriotic  sentiment,  which  should  be  the  guide 


286  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  every  statesman,  we  transcribe  the  paragraph  relating  directly  to  this 
subject : 

"  Your  happiness  and  the  nation's  welfare  materially  depend  upon  the 
selections  which  are  to  be  made  to  fill  the  heads  of  departments.  *  *  * 
Every  thing  depends  on  the  selection  of  your  ministry.  In  every  selec- 
tion, party  and  party  feelings  should  be  avoided.  Now  is  the  time  to 
exterminate  that  monster  called  party  spirit.  By  selecting  characters 
most  conspicuous  for  their  probity,  virtue,  capacity,  and  firmness,  with- 
out any  regard  to  party,  you  will  go  far  to,  if  not  entirely,  eradicate  those 
feelings,  which,  on  former  occasions,  threw  so  many  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  government ;  and  perhaps  have  the  pleasure  and  lioncrr  of  uniting  a 
people  heretofore  politically  divided.  The  chief  magistrate  of  a  great 
and  powerful  nation  should  never  indulge  in  party  feelings.  His  conduct 
should  be  liberal  and  disinterested,  always  bearing  in  mind  that  he  acts 
for  the  whole  and  not  a  part  of  the  community.  By  this  course  you  will 
exalt  the  national  character,  and  acquire  for  yourself  a  name  as  imperish- 
able as  monumental  marble.  Consult  no  party  in  your  choice,  pursue 
the  dictates  of  that  unerring  judgment  which  has  so  long  and  so  often 
benefited  our  country,  and  rendered  conspicuous  its  rulers.  These  are 
the  sentiments  of  a  friend ;  they  are  the  feelings,  if  I  know  my  own 
heart,  of  an  undissembled  patriot." 

The  time,  however,  had  not  yet  come,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Monroe,  when 
it  was  politic  to  break  down  the  partition  wall  between  the  parties.  His 
views  are  thus  expressed  in  his  answer  of  December  14,  1816:  "The 
election  has  been  made  by  the  republican  party,  supposing  that  it  has 
succeeded,  and  of  a  person  known  to  be  devoted  to  that  cause.  How 
shall  he  act  ?  How  organize  the  administration,  so  far  as  dependent  on 
him,  when  in  that  station  ?  How  fill  the  vacancies  existing  at  the 
time  ? 

"  The  distinction  between  republicans  and  federalists,  even  in  the 
southern,  and  middle,  and  western  states,  has  not  been  fully  done  away. 
To  give  eff'ect  to  free  government,  and  secure  it  from  future  danger,  ought 
not  its  decided  friends,  who  stood  firm  in  the  day  of  trial,  to  be  principally 
relied  on  ?  Would  not  the  association  of  any  of  their  opponents  in  the 
administration,  itself  wound  their  feelings,  or,  at  least,  of  very  many  of 
them,  to  the  injury  of  the  republican  cause  ?  Might  it  not  be  considered, 
by  the  other  party,  as  an  offer  of  compromise  with  them,  which  would 
lessen  the  ignominy  due  to  the  counsels  which  produced  the  Hartford 
convention,  and  thereby  have  a  tendency  to  revive  that  party  on  its 
former  principles  ?  My  impression  is,  that  the  administration  should 
rest  strongly  on  the  republican  party,  indulging  toward  the  other  a  spirit 
of  moderation,  and  evincing  a  desire  to  discriminate  between  its  mem- 


COItRESPONDENCE    WITH    GEN.    JACKSON.  287 

bers,  and  to  bring  the  whole  into  the  republican  fold,  as  quietly  as  possi- 
ble. Many  men,  very  distinguished  for  their  talents,  are  of  opinion  that 
the  existence  of  the  federal  party  is  necessary  to  keep  union  and  order 
in  the  republican  ranks ;  that  is,  that  free  government  can  not  exist  with- 
out parties.  This  is  not  my  opinion.  The  first  object  is  to  save  the 
cause,  which  can  be  done  by  those  who  are  devoted  to  it  only,  and  of 
course  by  keeping  them  together;  or,  in  other  words,  by  not  disgusting 
them  by  too  hasty  an  act  of  liberality  to  the  other  party,  thereby  break- 
ing the  generous  spirit  of  the  republican  party,  and  keeping  alive  that 
of  the  federal  party.  The  second  is,  to  prevent  the  reorganization  and 
revival  of  the  federal  party,  which,  if  my  hypothesis  is  true,  that  the 
existence  of  party  is  not  necessary  to  a  free  government,  and  the  other 
opinion  which  I  have  advanced  is  well  founded,  that  the  great  body  of 
the  federal  party  are  republican,  will  not  be  found  impracticable.  To 
accomplish  both  objects,  and  thereby  exterminate  all  party  divisions 
in  our  country,  and  give  new  strength  and  stability  to  our  govern- 
ment, is  a  great  undertaking,  not  easily  executed.  I  am,  nevertheless, 
decidedly  of  opinion  that  it  may  be  done ;  and  should  the  experiment 
fail,  I  shall  conclude  that  its  failure  was  imputable  more  to  the  want  of 
a  correct  knowledge  of  all  circumstances  claiming  attention,  and  of  sound 
judgment  in  the  measures  adopted,  than  to  any  other  cause.  I  agree, 
I  think,  perfectly  with  you,  in  the  grand  object,  that  moderation  should 
be  shown  to  the  federal  party,  and  even  a  generous  policy  be  adopted 
toward  it ;  the  only  difference  between  us  seems  to  be,  how  far  shall  that 
spirit  be  indulged  in  the  outset;  and  it  is  to  make  you  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  my  views  on  this  highly  important  subject,  that  I  have 
written  you  so  freely  upon  it." 

The  correspondence  between  these  two  gentlemen  was  continued, 
taking,  however,  a  different  turn.  Gen.  Jackson,  in  a  letter  of  the  6th 
of  January,  1817,  approved  Mr.  Monroe's  exposition  of  "  the  rise,  pro- 
gress, and  policy  of  the  federalists;"  and  said  :  "  Had  I  commanded  the 
military  department  where  the  Hartford  convention  met,  if  it  had 
been  the  last  act  of  my  life,  I  should  have  punished  the  three  prin- 
cipal leaders  of  the  party.  I  am  certain  an  independent  couvt-martial 
would  have  condemned  them  under  the  2d  section  of  the  act  estab- 
lishing rules  and  regulations  for  the  government  of  the  army  of  the 
United  States."  These  men,  he  said,  although  called  federalists,  wore 
really  monarchists  and  traitors.  But  there  were  those  called  federalists 
who  were  honest,  virtuous,  and  really  attached  to  the  government.  He 
repeats  his  recommendation  of  Col.  William  H.  Drayton,  of  South  Caro- 
lina, though  a  federalist,  as  well  qualified  for  the  war  department ;  and 
as  if  to  remove  any  objections,  on  account  of  his  being  a  federalist,  he 
said: 


288  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

"  Permit  me  to  add,  that  names,  of  themselves,  are  but  bubbles,  and 
sometimes  used  for  the  most  wicked  purposes.  I  will  name  one  instance. 
I  have  once  been  denounced  as  a  federalist.  You  will  smile  when  I 
name  the  cause.  When  your  country  put  up  your  name  in  opposition  to 
Mr.  M.,  (Madison)  I  was  one  of  those  who  gave  you  the  preference,  for 
the  reason  that,  in  the  event  of  war,  which  was  then  probable,  you  would 
steer  the  vessel  of  state  with  more  energy,  &c.  &c.  That  Mr.  M.,  was  one 
of  the  best  of  men,  and  a  great  civilian,  I  always  thought;  but  I  always 
believed  that  the  mind  of  a  philosopher  could  not  dwell  on  blood  and  car- 
nage with  any  composure  :  of  course  that  he  was  not  very  well  fitted  for 
a  stormy  sea.  I  was  immediately  branded  with  the  epithet  federalist, 
and  you  also.  But  I  trust,  when  compared  with  the  good  old  adage,  of 
the  tree  being  known  by  its  fruit,  it  was  unjustly  applied  to  either." 

Mr.  Monroe,  on  the  1st  of  March,  communicated  to  the  general  his 
selection  of  some  of  his  cabinet  officers.  He  states  that  Mr.  Clay,  who 
had  declined  the  offer  of  the  war  department  made  to  him  the  last  sum- 
mer by  Mr.  Madison,  had  again  declined  it ;  that  he  then  fixed  his  mind 
on  him,  (Jackson)  but  doubted  whether  he  ought  to  draw  him  from  the 
command  of  the  southern  army,  where,  in  case  of  any  emergency,  no  one 
could  supply  his  place.  He  then  resolved  to  nominate  *  *  *  *  *;  though 
it  was  uncertain  whether  he  would  serve.  For  secretary  of  state  he  had 
determined  upon  Mr.  Adams,  "  whose  claims,  by  long  service  in  our 
diplomatic  concerns,  appearing  to  entitle  him  to  the  preference,  supported 
by  his  acknowledged  abilities  and  integrity,  his  nomination  will  go  to  tho 
senate.     Mr.  Crawford,  it  is  expected,  will  remain  in  the  treasury." 

In  answer,  (March  18,)  the  general  approves  the  selection  of  Mr 
Adams  as  the  best  that  could  be  made.  In  the  hour  of  difficulty,  he 
would  be  an  able  helpmate,  and  his  appointment  would  afford  general 
satisfaction. 

In  accordance  with  the  sentiments  expressed  in  his  letter  to  Gen. 
Jackson,  Mr.  Monroe  selected  his  cabinet  officers  exclusively  from  the 
republican  part}-.  John  Quincy  Adams,  then  minister  at  London,  wa& 
called  to  the  office  of  secretary  of  state  ;  William  H.  Crawford  was  con- 
tinued secretary  of  the  treasury ;  and  Benjamin  W.  Crowinshield,  of 
Massachusetts,  was  continued  secretary  of  the  navy ;  Isaac  Shelby,  of 
Kentucky,  was  selected  for  the  department  of  war,  but  declining,  the 
office  was  vacant  until  the  appointment  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  December 
16,  1817  ;  Richard  Bush,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  continued  attorney-gen- 
eral, performing  also  the  duties  of  secretary  of  state,  until  the  return  of 
Mr.  Adams,  whom  he  succeeded  as  minister  to  Great  Britain,  in  Decem- 
ber following;  when  William  Wirt  was  appointed  attorney-general. 
Beturn  J.  Meigs,  of  Ohio,  was  continued  postmaster-general.  The  last 
was  not  then  a  cabinet  officer. 


THE    SEMINOLE    WAR.  289 

Regarding  an  effective  frontier  defense  as  an  object  of  higli  importance — 
the  want  of  whicli  had  been  severely  felt  during  the  war — the  president, 
in  the  summer,  made  a  tour  through  the  eastern  states,  for  the  purpose 
of  a  personal  examination  of  the  condition  of  the  fortifications  along  the 
Atlantic  coast ;  continuing  his  journey  westward  along  our  northern 
waters  to  Detroit,  and  returning  to  the  seat  of  government  through  Ohio, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Maryland.  The  president  was  every  where  received 
with  those  demonstrations  of  respect  which  were  due  to  his  official  station. 


CHAPTER  XXT. 

THE    SEMINOLE     WAR. OFFICIAL     INVESTIGATION    OF    THE    OCCUPATION    OF 

FLORIDA     BY     GENERAL     JACKSON. RATIFICATION     OF    A    TREATY    WITH 

SPAIN. TREATY   WITH   GREAT    BRITAIN. CESSION   OF  FLORIDA  AND  THE 

WESTERN    TERRITORY. 

The  Seminole  war,  as  an  item  of  political  history,  derives  much  of  its 
importance  from  the  question  which  it  involves;  viz.,  whether  the  occu- 
pation of  Florida  and  other  transactions  relating  to  that  war  were  not 
violations  of  the  neutrality  of  Spain,  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  of  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States. 

In  August,  1814,  while  the  war  existed  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  a  British  force,  commanded  by  Col.  NichoUs,  entered 
Florida,  then  a  province  of  Spain,  took  possession  of  Pensacola  and  the 
fort  of  Barancas,  and  by  public  proclamation  invited  runaway  negroes, 
savage  Indians  and  traitors  to  join  their  standard,  and  wage  war  against 
our  defenseless  inhabitants  bordering  on  the  neutral  and  violated  terri- 
tory of  Spain.  On  the  approach  of  the  army  under  Gen.  Jackson,  Col. 
Nicholls  evacuated  this  part  of  the  province,  and  established  himself  on 
the  Appalachicola  river,  where  he  erected  a  fort  from  which  to  carry  on 
his  predatory  warfare,  and  where  he  continued  his  hostile  operations 
after  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  of  peace  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain. 

By  the  9th  article  of  this  treaty,  the  United  States  stipulated  to  put 
an  end  immediately  to  all  hostilities  with  the  Indian  tribes  with  whom 
they  were  at  war,  and  to  restore  to  them  all  the  possessions  which  be- 
longed to  them  prior  to  the  year  1811.  This  stipulation  did  not  apply 
to  the  Creeks.  This  nation  had  been  brought,  during  the  war,  to  terms 
of  peace  by  Gen.  Jackson,  and  in  a  treaty  concluded  in  August,  1814, 
had  ceded  to  the  United  States  a  part  of  their  lands. 

19 


290  ^  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  expected  peace,  however,  was  not  secured.  The  Seminoles  were 
tribes  living  within  and  on  the  borders  of  Florida.  A  large  portion  of 
them  were  fugitives  from  northern  tribes  residing  within  the  United 
States,  whose  numbers  had  been  considerably  augmented  by  Indians  who 
were  dissatisfied  with  their  treaty,  and  had  taken  refuge  in  Florida,  car- 
rying with  them  feelings  of  hostility  against  the  United  States.  Though 
most  of  the  Seminoles  resided  in  Florida,  they  were  induced  by  Col. 
Nicholls  to  believe  that  they  were,  by  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  entitled  to 
all  the  lands  owned  by  the  whole  Creek  nation  within  the  United  States 
in  1811,  and  that  Grreat  Britain  would  enforce  the  observance  of  that 
treaty. 

The  Seminoles  soon  manifested  their  hostile  feelings ;  and,  for  the 
security  of  the  frontier,  forts  were  established,  and  occupied  by  a  portion 
of  the  regular  forces.  In  the  summer  of  1817,  murders  having  been 
committed  on  our  citizens.  Gen.  Gaines  was  sent  with  a  force  to  protect 
the  inhabitants,  with  directions  not  to  cross  the  Florida  line,  but  to  de- 
mand of  the  Indians  a  surrender  of  those  who  had  committed  the  crimes. 
Among  the  instigators  to  these  outrages,  were  Alexander  Arbuthnot  and 
Robert  C.  Ambrister,  British  subjects,  who  revived  the  pretense,  that 
these  Indians  were  entitled  to  the  lands  ceded  by  the  Creeks  to  the 
United  States  in  1814.  The  demand  for  the  murderers  was  made  and 
refused  ;  massacres  and  plunder  were  "continued  ;  and  a  border  warfare 
ensued,  in  which  the  most  wanton  butcheries  were  perpetrated  by  the 
Indians  without  regard  to  age  or  sex. 

With  a  view  to  the  speedy  termination  of  the  war,  Gen.  Jackson,  who 
had  been  appointed  to  the  command,  entered  the  Spanish  province  of 
Florida,  and  took  possession  of  the  posts  of  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola. 
The  government  of  Spain  protested  against  these  acts  as  invasions  of  her 
territory,  and  demanded  the  prompt  restitution  of  these  and  all  other 
forts  and  places,  with  all  the  property,  public  and  private,  taken  and 
occupied  by  the  forces  under  Gen.  Jackson,  and  indemnity  for  all  injuries 
and  losses  sustained  by  the  crown  and  subjects  of  Spain.  The  contro- 
versy which  ensued  was  conducted  principally  through  Louis  de  Onis, 
the  Spanish  minister  at  Washington,  and  John  Quincy  Adams,  secretary 
of  state. 

For  the  security  of  the  inhabitants  residing  on  the  borders  of  both 
countries,  the  United  States  and  Spain  were,  by  the  treaty  of  1795,  re- 
ciprocally bound,  "  by  all  means  in  their  power,  to  maintain  peace  and 
harmony  among  the  several  Indian  nations  who  inhabit  the  country  ad- 
jacent to  the  lines  and  rivers  which  form  the  boundaries  of  the  two 
Floridas  ;  and  the  better  to  obtain  this  effect,  both  parties  oblige  them- 
selves expressly  to  restrain,  by  force,  all  hostilities  on  the  part  of  the 


OCCUPATION    OF    FLORIDA    BY    GENERAL    JACKSON.  291 

Indian  nations  living  within  their  boundaries ;"  so  that  neither  party- 
should  suffer  the  Indians  within  its  territory  to  commit  acts  of  hostility 
against  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  other  party,  "  in  any  manner 
whatever." 

It  was  alleged  by  the  Spanish  minister  that  the  governor  of  Florida 
had  observed  a  strict  iieutr-ility  throughout  the  provinces  during  the  late 
war  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain.  The  obligation  to 
prevent  all  hostile  acts  of  the  Indians  of  Florida  against  our  citizens  was 
acknowledged ;  and  it  was  declared  that  the  governor  had  faithfully 
recommended  and  enjoined  peace  and  harmony  with  our  citizens,  and 
that,  if  any  complaints  had  been  made  to  the  Spanish  authority  of  any 
excesses  committed  by  the  Indians,  (with  which,  however,  they  were  not 
chargeable,)  forcible  means  would  have  been  employed  to  compel  them 
to  a  reparation  of  injuries,  and  to  punish  them  for  their  outrages. 

Mr.  Adams,  in  reply,  referred  to  the  treaty  of  1795.  Notwithstand- 
ing this  express  compact,  the  most  shocking' barbarities  had  been  com- 
mitted by  the  Seminole  Indians  and  a  banditti  of  negroes  sallying  from 
within  the  Spanish  border,  and  retreating  to  it  again  with  the  fruits  of 
their  crimes.  The  governor  of  Pensacola  had  been  called  upon  by  a 
letter  from  Gen.  Jackson  to  break  up  this  stronghold ;  but  he  had  pleaded 
an  insufficiency  of  force  to  fulfill  the  obligation  of  his  government.  By 
the  laws  and  usages  of  nations,  we  had  a  right  to  pursue  an  enemy  seek- 
ing refuge  in  a  neutral  territory.  But  Florida  was  not  in  this  case  even 
a  neutral,  being  the  abode  of  an  enemy  of  the  United  States  whom 
Spain  was  bound  to  restrain. 

The  previous  occupation  of  St.  Marks  was  also  defended.  A  report 
direct  from  the  governor  of  Pensacola,  as  well  as  information  from  other 
reliable  sources,  had  reached  Gen.  Jackson,  that  the  fort  of  St.  Marks 
had  been  threatened  by  the  Indians  and  negroes  ;  and  the  governor  him- 
self had,  from  the  weakness  of  the  garrison,  expressed  apprehension  for 
its  safety.  To  avoid  the  hazard  of  life  in  an  attempt  to  expel  the  enemy, 
it  was  necessary  to  anticipate  his  movements,  and  get  possession  of  it 
peaceably. 

The  duplicity  and  unfriendly  feelings  of  the  commandant  of  St.  Marks 
had  been  clearly  discovered.  He  had  thrown  open  the  gates  of  the  fort, 
and  permitted  it  to  be  used  for  councils  of  war  ;  for  storing  goods ;  and 
for  trading  in  cattle  and  other  property  plundered  from  our  citizens. 
Foreign  agents  also  had  free  access ;  and  Arbuthnot,  the  chief  instigator 
of  the  war,  was  an  inmate  of  the  commandant's  family.  When  charged 
by  Gen.  Jackson  with  having  given  aid  to  the  enemies  of  the  United 
States,  he  admitted  that  he  had  been  governed  by  policy.  The  defense- 
less state  of  the  garrison  had  induced  him  to  manifest  external  friendship 
bj  opening  the  fortress,  lest  it  should  be  entered  by  violence. 


292  THE   ABIERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Mr.  Adams  also  reminded  the  Spanisli  minister  of  tlie  erection  of  the 
fort  upon  Spanisli  territory,  under  the  sufferance  of  Spanish  authorities, 
by  British  officers  during  the  war,  for  the  annoyance  of  the  United 
States,  and  of  its  having  remained  the  stronghold  of  fugitive  negroes  and 
Indian  robbers  and  murderers  after  the  peace.  And  in  reply  to  the  plea 
of  De  Onis,  that  mea&ures  would  have  been  taken  to  restrain  the  Indians 
had  the  authorities  known  them  to  be  necessary,  Mr.  Adams  observed 
that  "  the  obligation  of  Spain  was  positive  and  unqualified  ;  and  that  an 
attempt  to  evade  its  force  by  the  allegation  that  Spain  could  not  carry 
it  into  effect  until  she  knew  what  hostilities  had  been  committed,  and  the 
possible  causes  of  them,  would  be  equally  unwarranted  by  the  express 
terms  of  the  article,  and  by  the  intentions  of  the  contracting  parties. 
The  stipulation  of  Spain  was  not  to  punish  her  Indians  for  murders  com- 
mitted upon  the  aged  and  infirm,  the  women  and  children  of  the  United 
States,  but  to  restrain  them  from  committing  them  :  and  the  insinuation 
that  the  Indians  had  been  provoked  to  such  atrocious  acts,  would  be  as 
disingenuous,  on  the  part  of  Spain,  to  escape  from  the  sacred  duties  of 
her  compact,  as  it  would  be  unfaunded  in  point  of  fact," 

G-en.  Jackson  having,  in  a  letter  of  the  2d  of  June,  1818,  announced 
the  termination  of  the  Seminole  war,  Mr.  Adams,  in  a  letter  to  De  Onis 
of  the  23d  of  July,  informed  him  that  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola  would 
be  restored — the  latter  to  any  person  duly  authorized  by  Spain  ta  receive 
it.  St.  Marks,  being  in  the  heart  of  the  Indian  country,  and  remote 
from  Spanish  settlements,  could  be  surrendered  only  to  a  force  sufficient 
to  hold  it  against  the  attack  of  hostile  Indians,  when  such  force  should 
appear. 

The  conduct  of  Gen.  Jackson  in  the  prosecution  of  the  Seminole  waF, 
was  the  subject  of  severe  animadversion  and  of  official  investigation.  He 
had,  it  was  alleged,  violated,  in  sundry  instances,  not  only  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  war  department,  but  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  had,  by  his  order,  been  tried  by  a  court  mar- 
tial, and  found  guilty,  on  the  following  charges :  the  former,  of  exciting 
the  Creek  Indians  against  the  United  States,  and  of  aiding,  abetting,  and 
comforting  the  enemy,,  supplying  them  with  the  means  of  war ;  the  lat- 
ter, of  the  first  of  the  above  charges,  and  of  leading  and  commanding  the 
lower  Creek  Indians  in  carrying  on  a  war  against  the  United  States. 
Arbuthnot  was  sentenced  by  the  court  to  be  hung ;  Ambrister  to  be 
shot.  On  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote  on  the  sentence  of  the  latter,  it 
was  changed  to  fifty  stripes  on  the  bare  back,  and  confinement  with  a 
ball  and  chain,  to  hard  labor  for  one  year.  Gen.  Jackson,  however,  dis- 
approved the  reconsideration.  The  evidence  against  the  prisoner  being 
clear,  and  the  law  of  nations  regarding  an  individual  of  a  nation  making 


OCCUPATION    OP    FLORIDA    BY    GENERAL    JACKSON,  293 

war  against  the  citizens  of  any  other  nation  as  having  forfeited  his  alle- 
giance, and  become  an  outlaw  and  a  pirate,  the  general  ordered  him  to 
be  shot,  agreeably  to  the  first  sentence  of  the  court. 

The  proceedings  of  Gen.  Jackson  in  the  Seminole  war  were  made  the 
subject  of  investigation  by  congress  at  the  ensuing  session.  In  the 
house  of  representatives,  on  the  12th  of  January,  1819,  the  committee 
on  military  affairs,  to  whom  the  subject  had  been  referred,  made  a 
report,  in  which  they  express  the  opinion,  that  there  is  no  law  authoriz- 
ing the  trial  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  before  a  military  court ;  that 
there  was  no  necessity  for  the  death  of  the  prisoners,  the  war  being 
virtuall}^  at  an  end ;  the  enemy's  strongholds  destroyed ;  the  Indians 
dispersed;  the  forts  in  our  possession;  and  the  Georgia  militia  having 
returned  to  their  homes.  The  offenses  charged  were  not  piracies,  which 
imply  offenses  on  the  high  seas,  of  which  the  court  could  not  take  cog- 
nizance. Nor  did  the  term  "  outlaw  '^  apply  to  the  offenders ;  it  applied 
only  to  the  relations  of  individuals  wit|t  their  own  governments.  The 
reversal  of  the  sentence  of  the  court  in  the  case  of  Ambrister  was  also 
disapproved  as  contrary  to  the  forms  and  usages  of  the  army.  The 
committee  accordingly  submitted  the  following  resolution: 

"  Resolved,  That  the  house  of  representatives  of  the  United  States 
disapproves  the  proceedings  in  the  trial  of  Alexander  Arbuthnot  and 
Kobert  C.  Ambrister." 

Another  paper,  drawn  up  in  the  shape  of  a  report,  but  which  had 
been  refused  by  a  majority  of  only  one  vote,  was  submitted  by  H.  M, 
Johnson  of  the  same  committee.  This  paper  defended  the  proceedings 
of  Gen.  Jackson,  both  in  the  occupation  of  the  Spanish  posts,  and  in 
the  trial  and  execution  of  Ambrister  and  Arbuthnot.  Florida,  it  was 
said,  was  no  longer  neutral  territory.  The  Spanish  authorities  had,  by 
their  own  act,  made  it  the  seat  of  war ;  and  having,  whether  by  weak- 
ness or  partiality,  suffered  the  enemies  of  the  United  States  to  retreat 
into  Spanish  territory,  to  collect  strength  and  provide  supplies  for  a 
renewal  of  the  conflict,  our  army  had  a  right,  by  the  law  of  nations,  to 
pursue  the  enemy  into  that  territory. 

The  principle  was  also  asserted,  as  consonant  to  the  laws  of  nature 
and  of  nations,  that  when  a  nation  departs  from  the  rules  of  civilized 
warfare,  ^'  and  grossly  violates  the  laws  of  nations  and  of  humanity, 
retaliation  or  reprisals  are  always  justifiable,  often  useful,  and  some- 
times necessary,  to  teach  the  offenders  to  respect  the  laws  of  humanity, 
and  to  save  the  effusion  of  blood.  In  such  cases,  when  the  guilty  per- 
sons can  be  taken  and  identified,  the  punishment  ought  to  fall  exclusively 
upon  them."  Hence,  Ambrister  and  Arbuthnot,  for  their  ageucy  in  this 
savage  warfare,  might  have   been  lawfully  executed,  even  without  the 


294  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

intervention  of  a  court-martial.  The  committee,  however,  expressed 
the  opinion,  that  it  would  have  been  more  correct  for  Gen.  Jackson, 
after  having  submitted  the  case  to  a  court  martial,  to  acquiesce  in  it& 
decision  as  to  the  punishment  to  be  inflicted. 

On  the  8th  of  February,  the  question  was  taken  on  the  report  of  the 
military  committee  and  Mr.  Cobb's  resolutions,  which  were  disagreed 
to,  as  follows:  On  disagreeing  to  that  part  of  the  report  which  related 
to  the  case  of  Arbuthnot,  108  to  62.  On  that  which  related  to  Ambris- 
ter,  107  to  63.  A  resolution  was  then  moved  by  Mr.  Cobb,  declaring 
the  seizure  of  the  Spanish  posts  at  Pensacola  and  St.  Carlos  de  Barancas 
to  have  been  contrary  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  After 
a  motion  to  postpone  its  consideration  indefinitely  had  been  negatiyed, 
87  to  83,  the  resolution  was  disagreed  to,  100  to  70. 

In  the  senate  the  subject  was  referred  to  a  select  committee,  who  also 
made  a  report  disapproving  the  acts  of  Gen.  Jackson.  They  charge 
him,  first,  with  having  raised  his  army  in  disregard  of  positive  orders. 
The  constitution  gives  to  congress  "  the  power  to  raise  armies,  and  to 
provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  suppress  insurrections  and  inva- 
sions ;  "  and  in  conformity  with  this  provision,  congress  has  authorized 
the  president,  on  such  occasions,  to  call  on  the  governors  or  any  militia 
officers  of  the  states  for  the  requisite  militia  force.  Gen.  Jackson  had 
been  ordered  to  make  such  call  on  the  governor  of  Tennessee ;  but  he 
had,  contrary  to  orders,  himself  raised  a  volunteer  force  of  1000  mounted 
gun-men  to  serve  during  the  campaign.  He  had  also  himself  appointed 
the  officers,  in  direct  violation  of  the  provision  of  the  constitution,  which 
reserves  to  the  states  this  power ;  and  five  of  these  officers,  created  by 
him,  and  holding  their  office  at  his  will,  were  members  of  the  court 
martial.  The  committee  saw  no  necessity  of  thus  hastily  increasing  the 
regular  army.  The  whole  strength  of  these  undisciplined  banditti  of 
Indians  and  fugitive  slaves,  did  not  exceed  1000  men,  while  under 
Gen.  Gaines,  previous  to  Gen.  Jackson's  taking  the  command,  there 
were  1800  regulars  and  militia,  and  the  1500  friendly  Indians  subsidized 
by  the  former  general. 

Gen.  Gaines,  it  was  said,  had  been  enjoined,  in  case  the  enemy  should 
take  refuge  under  a  Spanish  garrison,  not  to  attack  them  there,  but  to 
report  the  fact  to  the  secretary  of  war.  Gen.  Jackson  having  succeeded 
to  the  command,  ought  to  have  observed  the  injunction.  Having 
annulled  the  civil  and  military  government  of  Spain,  he  abolished  her 
revenue  laws,  and  established  those  of  the  United  States,  as  being  more 
favorable  to  our  commerce ;  appointed  a  collector,  and  instituted  a  new 
government,  the  powers  of  which,  civil  and  military,  were  vested  in 
military  officers. 


OCCUPATION  OF  FLORIDA  BY  GEN.  JACKSON.  295 

.  As  Spain  had  not  invaded  the  United  States,  nor  congress  declared 
war  against  her,  his  taking  possession  of  the  Spanish  posts,  and  imposing 
terms  of  capituhition,  were  acts  of  war  against  that  nation  which 
congress  alone  ^lad  power  to  declare  or  make.  Had  Spain  violated  every 
article  of  the  treaty,  the  executive  was  bound  to  require  its  observance 
on  our  part,  until  it  should  have  been  annulled  or  revoked  by  congress. 
Her  conduct,  though  it  had  been  deemed  by  congress  good  cause  of  war, 
would  not  make  her  a  party  to  the  war  :  this  could  be  done  only  by  op- 
posing Gen.  Jackson  by  physical  force. 

The  committee  also  noticed  the  projected  expedition  against  St. 
Augustine.  More  than  two  months  after  the  war  had  been  terminated, 
suspecting  that  the  agents  of  Spain  or  the  officers  of  St.  Augustine  had 
excited  the  Indians  to  hostility,  and  furnished  them  with  means  of  war, 
he  issued  an  order  to  Gen.  Gaines,  dated  Nashville,  August  7,  1818, 
directing  him,  if  evidence  of  this  fact  should  be  obtained,  and  his  force 
should  be  deemed  sufficient,  to  take  and  garrison  the  fort  with  United 
States  troops,  and  to  hold  the  garrison  prisoners,  until  he  should  hear 
from  the  president,  or  to  transport  them  to  Cuba,  as  he  should  think 
best.  The  general  declared  the  order  to  rest,  ''  not  on  the  ground  that 
we  are  at  war  with  Spain,  but  on  the  broad  basis  of  the  law  of  nature 
and  of  nations,  and  justified  by  giving  peace  and  security  to  our  fron- 
tiers." The  committee  considered  this  an  assumption  of  authority  to 
make  war  on  a  neutral  colony,  in  disregard  of  the  legislative  and  execu- 
tive authorities  of  the  United  States.  The  secretary  of  war,  on  receiving 
a  copy  of  the  order,  promptly  countermanded  it.  "  And  then,"  say  the 
committee,  "  was  arrested  a  military  scheme  as  unconstitutional  as  it 
was  impolitic,  and  which  might,  as  stated  by  the  secretary  of  war,  in  his 
letter  of  the  8th  of  September,  1818,  have  involved  this  nation  in  a  war 
with  all  Europe." 

The  committee  considered  the  execution  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister 
"  as  an  unnecessary  act  of  severity,"  without  precedent  in  our  conflict 
with  the  savages,  and  dishonorable  to  our  national  character.  This  com- 
mittee, as  that  of  the  house,  controverted  the  principle  that  these  men,  by 
uniting  in  war  against  the  United  States,  while  we  were  at  peace  with 
Great  Britain,  "  became  outlaws  and  pirates,  and  liable  to  suffer  death." 
This  principle  was  not  recognized  by  the  custom  and  usages  of  civilized 
nations. 

The  report  was  made  to  the  senate  on  the  24th  of  February,  1819 — 
too  late  a  day  to  admit  its  being  acted  on  during  the  session,  which 
closed  the  3d  of  March.  Strictures  written  with  great  ability,  strongly 
animadverting  upon  the  character  of  the  report,  and  vindicating  the 
general,  soon  appeared  in  the  newspapers ;  and  at  the  next  session  of 


296  THE    AMERICAN  -STATESMAN. 

congress,  Gen.  Jackson  presented  to  tlie  senate  a  memorial  in  his  own 
defense  against  the  conclusions  of  the  committee's  report. 

The  general  alleged,  in  justification  of  his  proceedings,  the  discretion- 
ary orders  from  the  department  of  war.  He  had  been .  directed  to  act 
offensively — to  bring  the  war  to  a  speedy  termination ;  to  inflict  exem- 
plary punishment  for  hostilities  so  unprovoked  ;  and  to  establish  a  peace 
on  such  terms  as  would  make  it  honorable  and  permanent.  Powers 
more  ample  could  not  have  been  conferred.  He  was  not  bound  by  the 
orders  issued  to  Gen.  Gaines.  But  even  if  they  had  been  obligatory, 
they  must  have  lost  their  force,  as  the  case  they  contemplated  never  oc- 
curred. The  orders  to  himself  had  superseded  those  directed  to  Gen. 
Gaines  ;  he  could  not  therefore  be  guilty  of  their  violation  :  and  the  sub- 
sequent approval  of  his  measures  by  the  executive,  he  considered  as  set- 
tling the  question. 

The  terms  of  capitulation  had  been  settled  by  the  general  government ; 
and  he,  not  as  negotiator,  but  as  conqueror  of  the  country,  had  received 
their  submission  on  those  terms,  which  demanded  the  surrender  of  the 
instigators  of  the  war. 

The  occupation  of  the  Spanish  posts  was  necessary  to  the  execution 
of  his  orders.  The  war  could  not  have  been  effectually  terminated  while 
the  enemy  were  assisted  and  encouraged  in  their  savage  hostilities.  The 
authority  of  Spain  over  Florida,  according  to  the  acknowledgment  of 
her  own  commanding  officers,  had  ceased ;  and  he  was  not  bound  to  re- 
spect an  authority  that  did  not  exist — a  sovereignty  that  was  not  asserted 
or  exercised.  The  aid  rendered  the  savages  was  so  flagrant  a  violation 
of  good  faith  on  the  part  of  Spain,  as  wholly  to  merge  the  neutral  char- 
acter. Ambrister  had  appeared  before  St.  Marks  with  about  500  negroes 
and  Indians ;  and  an  equal  number  had  been  seen  about  Pensacola,  the 
most  of  whom  had  been  equipped  for  war  by  governor  Magot ;  a  strength 
sufficient,  in  both  instances,  for  a  forcible  occupation  of  these  posts. 
The  governor  had  refused  the  passage  of  provisions  up  the  Escambia  for 
the  relief  of  our  starving  troops ;  and  the  vessels  had  been  detained 
and  captured.  Had  he  waited  for  additional  orders  from  the  war  depart- 
ment, the  object  of  anticipating  the  enemy  in  obtaining  possession  of  the 
fort,  would  have  been  defeated  ;  the  time  of  the  militia  force  would  have 
expired  before  any  thing  efficient  could  have  been  done,  and  the  campaign 
rendered  abortive. 

These  proceedings  were  not  acts  of  war  :  they  had  not  been  directed 
against  the  government  of  Spain.  The  Spanish  government  did  not  so 
consider  them.  The  two  governments  still  acknowledged  themselves  at 
peace.  It  would  appear  from  the  correspondence,  that  he  had  entered 
the  territory  of  Spain  as  a  friend^  to  chastise  an  enemy  of  both  nations, 


OCCUPATION    OF    FLORIDA    BY    GEN-    JACKSON.  297 

and  to  enforce  obligations  and  duties  which  the  Spanish  authorities  had 
pleaded  inability  to  perform.  Nor  was  it  true,  as  stated  by  the  com- 
mittee, that  the  garrisons  were  made  prisoners  of  war. 

As  to  the  new  government,  nothing  more  was  contemplated  than  some 
kind  of  civil  authority  to  protect  the  lives  and  property  of  the  citizens 
during  the  temporary  occupancy  of  the  fortress.  The  temporary  gov- 
ernor was  a  military  officer ;  but  civil  officers  were  appointed  to  the  dif- 
ferent departments  from  amongst  the  citizens.  The  establishment  of 
the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  became  necessary  to  prevent 
smuggling,  as  well  as  to  admit  the  American  merchant  to  an  equal  par- 
ticipation in  trade,  which  was  denied  by  the  Spanish  laws. 

The  execution  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  he  said,  was  justified  by 
precedent  and  the  laws  of  nations.  They  had  become  identified  with  the 
outlawed  Red  Sticks  and  fugitive  negroes,  who  were  in  a  state  of  open 
rebellion — associates  in  war,  and  acting  as  their  chiefs.  Great  Britain 
would  not  interfere  in  their  case ;  and  the  Spanish  authorities  either 
would  not,  or  could  not.  Respecting  none  of  the  laws  of  civilized  war- 
fare, they  could  not  claim  the  benefit  of  these  laws,  and  were  as  much 
outlaws  to  all  their  provisions  as  a  pirate  on  the  ocean.  It  should  be 
remembered  that  these  British  outlaws  and  the  Indian  chiefs  were  the 
monsters  demanded  to  be  surrendered  by  the  treaty  of  Fort  Jackson, 
the  terms  of  which  had  been  antecedently  settled  by  the  government, 
ratified  by  your  honorable  body,  and  carried  into  effect  by  congress  ;  and 
that  these  British  incendiaries  were  the  instigators  of  the  war,  upon 
whom  "  exemplary  punishment"  was  to  be  inflicted.  The  rights  and 
privileges  secured  by  the  rules  and  articles  of  war,  belonged  only  to  our 
own  countrymen ;  and  the  offenses  having  been  committed  by  foreigners 
beyond  our  territorial  limits,  the  only  law  applicable  to  the  case  was  the 
law  of  nations,  which  attaches  to  their  crimes  no  other  penalty  than 
that  of  death.  Hence,  the  last  sentence  of  the  court  in  the  case  of 
Ambrister  being  deemed  void,  the  first  was  confirmed  and  executed. 

Gen.  Jackson  also  denied  that,  in  raising  the  volunteers,  he  had  disre- 
garded the  orders  of  the  war  department,  or  the  constitution  and  laws. 
His  orders  were  to  call  upon  the  governors  of  the  adjacent  states  for 
such  additional  force  as  he  might  deem  necessary  to  beat  the  enemy,  no 
number  or  description  of  troops  having  been  mentioned.  He  had  been, 
in  the  language  of  the  department,  "  vested  with  full  powers  to  conduct 
the  war  as  he  might  judge  best."  He  cited  facts  to  show  that  the  dan- 
ger and  distress  of  the  frontier  settlements  and  a  part  of  the  army  were 
such  as  to  demand  immediate  relief.  As  it  was  not  known  that  the 
governor  was  then  at  Knoxville  or  in  the  Cherokee  nation,  and  as  there 
was  danger  in  waiting  for  the  slow  process  of  drafting  militia,  he  had 


298  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

appealed  to  his  old  and  tri^d  comrades  in  arms;  and  on  the  same  day 
the  governor  had  been  written  to,  apprising  him  that,  if  the  appeal  for 
volunteers  should  not  be  promptly  answered,  1000  drafted  militia  would 
be  required  :  and  the  measure  had  received  the  governor's  approval  and 
cooperation. 

Nor  had  he,  as  the  committee  alleged,  appointed  the  officers ;  they 
had,  at  his  own  request,  been  chosen  by  the  volunteers  themselves.  The 
appointment  of  an  inspector-general  of  the  southern  division,  to  super- 
intend the  organization,  and  lead  them  to  Fort  Scott,  where  he  took  the 
command,  was  his  only  agency  in  the  whole  transaction.  Every  measure 
touching  the  raising  and  organizing  of  the  volunteers,  had  been  fully 
approved  by  the  department.  The  committee,  to  make  it  appear  that 
there  was  no  necessity  for  this  hasty  increase  of  the  army,  had  misstated 
the  number  of  the  enemy.  They  had  been  computed  by  Gen.  Gaines  at 
2,800,  and  by  Arbuthnot  at  3,500.  So  also  had  the  forces  under  Gen. 
Gaines  been  greatly  exaggerated. 

In  vindicating  his  order  for  the  occupation  of  St.  Augustine,  the 
general  admitted  that  the  war  had  been  supposed  to  be  at  an  end  ; 
but  subsequent  information  had  proved  the  opinion  to  be  erroneous.  A 
number  of  murders  and  other  outrages  had  been  committed.  Intelli- 
gence from  Major  Twiggs  had  created  a  strong  presumption  that  this 
post  also  had  become  a  depot  and  retreat  for  the  negroes  and  Indians 
after  they  had  been  driven  from  Negro  Fort,  St.  Marks,  and  Pensacola. 
The  order,  however,  was  conditional  and  prospective  ;  and  had  the  facts 
reported  been  established,  there  would  have  been  the  same  reason  for  the 
occupancy  of  St.  Augustine  as  of  the  other  Spanish  fortresses. 

From  the  foregoing  summary  of  facts  and  arguments,  the  reader  is 
left  to  draw  his  own  conclusions.  The  character  of  our  public  men  and 
that  of  the  nation,  are  inseparable.  What  affects  the  former,  necessa- 
rily affects  the  latter.  The  various  public  services  of  Gen.  Jackson 
have  given  his  name  a  conspicuous  place  on  the  roll  of  our  distin- 
guished men.  When,  subsequent  to  the  transactions  here  recorded,  he 
was  before  the  public  as  a  candidate  for  the  presidency,  the  old  charges 
of  usurpation  of  power,  and  of  insubordination  to  the  constitution  and  the 
laws,, were  revived;  and  many  of  our  citizens  formed  their  opinions  of 
his  official  acts  from  representations  made  at  a  time  and  under  influences 
not  the  most  favorable  to  candid  inquiry  and  calm  consideration.  It 
therefore  seemed  to  be  due  to  Gen.  Jackson,  to  give  a  detailed  sketch 
of  his  proceedings  in  the  Seminole  war,  and  to  allow  him  the  benefit  of 
being  heard  in  self-defense.  With  regard  to  the  justice  of  the  high 
charges  preferred  against  him,  there  was  at  the  time  a  wide  difference  of 
opinion.     His  acts  appear  to  have  been  fully  justified  by  Mr.  Adams, 


RATIFICATION    OF    A    TREATY    WITH    SPAIN.  299 

as  secretary  of  state,  in  his  correspondence  with  the  Spanish  minister 
and  Mr.  Erving,  our  minister  to  Spain.  On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Clay, 
then  a  member  of  the  house  of  representatives,  zealously  advocated  the 
adoption  of  the  resolution  of  censure  reported  by  the  military  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Monroe,  in  his  annual  message  of  November  17,  1818,  alluded 
to  this  subject  as  follows  :  "In  authorizing  Major-General  Jackson  to 
enter  Florida  in  pursuit  of  the  Seminoles,care  was  taken  not  to  encroach 
on  the  rights  of  Spain.  *  #  *  The  commanding  general  was  con- 
vinced, that  he  should  fail  in  his  object,  that  he  should  in  effect  accom- 
plish nothing,  if  he  did  not  deprive  those  savages  of  the  resources  on 
which  they  had  calculated,  and  of  the  protection  on  which  they  had 
relied,  in  making  the  war. 

"  Although  the  reasons  which  induced  Major-G-eneral  Jackson  to  take 
these  posts  were  duly  appreciated,  there  was,  nevertheless,  no  hesitation 
in  deciding  on  the  course  which  it  became  the  government  to  pursue. 
As  there  was  reason  to  believe  that  the  commanders  of  these  posts  had 
violated  their  instructions,  there  was  no  disposition  to  impute  to  their 
government  a  conduct  so  unprovoked  and  hostile.  An  order  was  in  con- 
sequence issued  to  the  general  in  command  there  to  deliver  the  posts ; 
Pensacola,  unconditionally,  to  any  person  duly  authorized  to  receive  it, 
and  St.  Marks,  which  is  in  the  heart  of  the  Indian  country,  on  the  arri- 
val of  a  competent  force  to  defend  it  against  those  savages  and  their 
associates. 

"  In  entering  Florida  to  suppress  this  combination,  no  idea  was  enter- 
tained of  hostility  to  Spain ;  and  however  justifiable  the  commanding 
general  was,  in  consequence  of  the  misconduct  of  the  Spanish  officers,  in 
entering  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola  to  determine  it  by  proving  to  the 
savages  and  their  associates  that  they  could  not  be  protected  even  there; 
yet  the  amicable  relations  existing  between  the  United  States  and  Spain 
could  not  be  altered  by  that  act  alone.  By  ordering  the  restitution  of 
the  posts,  those  relations  were  preserved.  To  a  change  of  them  the 
power  of  the  executive  is  deemed  incompetent ;  it  is  vested  in  congress 
only." 

This  language  of  the  president,  considered  with  the  prompt  orders  to 
surrender  the  posts,  indicates,  on  his  part,  an  apprehension  that  the 
occupation  of  these  posts  was  incompatible  with  a  state  of  neutrality. 
A  revival  of  this  controversy  took  place  during  the  administration  of 
Gen.  Jackson,  in  which  several  interesting  additional  facts  were  elicited, 
which  will  be  found  in  their  appropriate  place. 

A  treaty  with  Spain,  concluded  at  Madrid,  August  11,  1802,  and 
ratified  by  our  government,  but  the  ratification  of  which  by  Spain  had 


300  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

been  withheld  for  sixteen  years,  was  published  by  the  president  on  the 
22d  of  December,  1818.  This  treaty  provided  for  the  settlement,  by 
the  arbitration  of  commissioners,  of  all  claims  of  the  citizens  of  Spain 
and  of  the  United  States,  respectively,  for  losses  sustained  by  the  depre- 
dations of  citizens  of  the  two  governments  prior  to  the  year  1802.  The 
claims  of  the  United  States  for  spoliations  by  French  privateers,  carry- 
ing their  prizes  into  the  ports  of  Spain,  during  the  same  period,  were 
not  provided  for,  but  reserved  for  future  negotiation. 

A  treaty  with  Great  Britain  was  concluded  October  20,  1818,  at 
London,  by  Richard  Rush,  American  minister  to  the  court  of  G-reat 
Britain,  and  Albert  Gallatin,  minister  to  France,  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States,  and  Frederick  John  Robinson  and  Henry  Goulburn,  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain.  The  ratifications  of  the  two  governments 
having  been  duly  exchanged  at  "Washington,  the  treaty  was  proclaimed 
by  the  president  of  the  United  States  on  the  30th  of  January. 

By  this  treaty,  the  right  of  our  citizens  to  the  eastern  fisheries  were 
settled  and  guarantied.  A  line  between  the  territories  of  the  two 
countries  was  also  determined,  viz.  :  From  the  most  north-western  point 
of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  to  the  49th  degree  of  north  latitude,  and 
along  the  said  parallel  of  latitude  to  the  Rocky  Mountains.  And  any 
territory  claimed  by  either  party  on  the  north-west  coast,  west  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  was,  with  its  harbors  and  navigable  waters,  to  be  free 
to  the  use  of  both  parties  for  the  term  of  ten  years.  This  agreement 
was  to  prevent  disputes  and  differences,  and  not  to  be  construed  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  claim  of  either  party  to  any  part  of  the  country.  The 
north-eastern  boundary  was  not  settled  by  this  treaty. 

As  differences  had  arisen  whether,  by  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
an  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  the  United  States  were  entitled  to 
compensation  for  slaves  within  the  territory  or  places  occupied  by  the 
British  forces  at  the  time  of  the  making  of  the  treaty,  and  directed  by ' 
that  treaty  to  be  restored  to  the  United  States ;  these  differences  were 
to  be  referred  to  the  arbitration  of  some  friendly  power.  In  pursuance 
of  this  agreement,  the  question  was  subsequently  referred  to  the  emperor 
of  Russia,  who,  on  the  30th  of  June,  1822,  gave  his  decision  as  fol- 
lows :  That  the  United  States  were  entitled  to  indemnification  for  all 
the  slaves  carried  away  by  the  British  forces  from  places  and  territories 
which  the  treaty  stipulated  to  restore,  in  quitting  these  same  places  and 
territories :  That  all  slaves  were  to  be  considered  as  having  been  so 
carried  away,  who  had  been  transferred  from  these  territories  to  British 
vessels  within  the  said  territories,  and  who  for  this  reason  had  not  been 
restored :  But  that  for  slaves  carried  away  from  territories  which  the 
treaty  did  not  stipulate  to  restore,  the  United  States  are  not  entitled  to 


GESSlaN    OF    FLORIDA.  301 

indemnification.  The  emperor  also  appointed  two  of  bis  privy  council- 
lors, Count  Nesselrode  and  Count  Capodistrias,  together  with  Henry 
Middleton,  the  American  minister  at  St.  Petersburgh,  and  Charles 
Bagot,  the  British  minister  at  the  same  place,  to  provide  the  mode  of 
ascertaining  the  value  of  the  slaves,  and  of  other  private  property 
unlawfully  carried  away,  and  for  which  indemnification  was  to  be  made. 

Negotiations  on  the  subject  of  the  long  standing  disputes  between  the 
United  States  and  Spain,  were,  after  the  temporary  suspension  caused 
by  the  Florida  controversy,  resumed,  and  soon  brought  to  a  successful 
termination.  A  treaty  of  amity,  settlement,  and  limits,  was  concluded 
at  Washington,  on  the  22d  of  February,  1819,  by  John  Quincy  Adams, 
secretary  of  state,  and  Luis  de  Onis,  the  Spanish  minister  at  Washing- 
ton. By  this  treaty,  Spain  ceded  to  the  United  States  all  her  territory 
east  of  the  Mississippi,  known  by  the  name  of  East  and  West  Florida, 
and  a  large  territory  west  of  that  river. 

The  cession  of  the  Floridas  included  the  adjacent  islands  dependent 
on  these  provinces,  with  all  public  lots,  buildings,  fortifications,  and  the 
archives  and  documents  which  related  directly  to  the  property  and 
sovereignty  of  the  provinces ;  the  archives  and  documents  to  be  left  in 
possession  of  the  commissioners  or  officers  of  the  United  States  autho- 
rized to  receive  them. 

West  of  the  Mississippi  was  ceded  the  territory  east  and  north  of  the 
boundary  line  running  along  the  west  bank  of  the  Sabine,  from  the  gulf 
of  Mexico  to  the  32d  degree  of  north  latitude,  being  the  north-west  limit 
of  the  state  of  Louisiana;  thence  due  north  to  the  Kio  Roxo  of  Nachi- 
toches,  or  Red  River ;  thence  following  the  same  westward  to  longitude 
100  degrees  from  London,  and  23  from  Washington;  then  crossing 
Red  River  and  running  thence  due  north  to  the  river  Arkansas ;  thence 
along  the  southern  bank  of  the  same  to  its  source,  in  latitude  42  degrees 
north  ;  and  thence  by  that  parallel  of  latitude  to  the  South  Sea,  (Paci- 
fic ;)  the  whole  being  as  laid  down  in  Melish's  map  of  the  United  States, 
published  at  Philadelphia,  improved  on  the  1st  of  January,  1818.  But 
if  the  source  of  the  Arkansas  should  be  found  to  be  north  or  south  of 
latitude  42,  then  the  line  was  to  run  from  the  said  source  north  or  south 
to  that  latitude,  and  thence  along  the  said  parallel  to  the  South  Sea. 
All  the  islands  in  the  Sabine,  Red,  and  Arkansas  rivers  were  to  belong 
to  the  United  States ;  but  the  use  of  the  waters  and  the  navigation  of 
the  Sabine  to  the  sea,  and  of  the  Red  and  Arkansas  throughout  the 
extent  of  the  said  boundary,  on  their  respective  banks,  were  to  be  com- 
mon to  the  inhabitants  of  both  nations. 

The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territories  were  to  be  secured  in  the  free 
exercise  of  their  religion ;  and  they  were  to  be  incorporated  into  the 


3^02  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

union  as  soon  as  might  be  consistent  with  the  principles  of  the  federal 
constitution,  and  to  be  admitted  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights, 
privileges  and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

The  United  States  stipulated  to  pay  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales 
of  lands  in  Florida,  or  in  stock  or  money,  as  congress  should  prescribe, 
to  our  own  citizens,  on  account  of  spoliations  and  other  injuries  received 
by  them  from  the  government  of  Spain,  or  from  the  governments  of  her 
colonies,  a  sum  not  exceeding  jive  millions  of  dollars ;  the  amount  of 
the  claims  to  be  ascertained  by  a  board  of  three  commissioners,  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  to  be  appointed  by  the  president  and  senate,  and 
and  to  make  their  report  within  three  years.  All  other  claims  on  each 
other  for  spoliations  or  other  injuries,  were  mutually  renounced  by  the 
two  governments. 

Spanish  vessels  laden  only  with  productions  of  Spanish  growth  or  manu- 
facture, direct  from  the  ports  of  Spain  or  her  colonies,  were  to  be  admitted 
for  the  term  of  twelve  years,  to  the  ports  of  Pensacola  and  St.  Augus- 
tine, on  the  same  terms  as  vessels  of  the  United  States ;  the  twelve 
years  to  commence  three  months  after  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications 
of  the  treaty. 

This  treaty,  of  which  these  are  the  most  essential  provisions,  w^as 
hailed  throughout  the  country  as  a  satisfactory  termination  of  the  tedious, 
impleasant  negotiations  with  Spain.  The  National  Intelligencer,  in 
announcing  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  by  the  senate,  said  :  "  It  termi- 
nates the  only  existing  controversy  with  any  of  the  European  powers. 
It  rounds  off  our  southern  possessions,  and  forever  precludes  foreign 
emissaries  from  stirring  up  Indians  to  war  and  negroes  to  rebellion, 
whilst  it  gives  to  the  southern  country  important  outlets  to  the  sea.  It 
adjusts  the  vast  western  boundary,  acknowledging  the  United  States  to 
be  sovereign,  under  the  hitherto  contested  Louisiana  treaty,  over  all  the 
territory  we  ever  seriously  contended  for.  In  a  word,  it  is  a  treaty  than 
which  the  most  sanguine  have  not  anticipated  one  much  more  favorable  ; 
it  is  one  that  fully  comes  up  to  the  expectations  of  the  great  body  of 
the  American  people." 

A  few  days  after  the  treaty  was  concluded,  in  expectation  of  its 
prompt  ratification  on  the  part  of  Spain,  a  law  was  passed  in  pursuance 
of  a  recommendation  of  the  president,  for  the  occupation  of  Florida. 
The  anticipated  ratification,  however,  which  by  a  provision  of  the  treaty 
was  to  have  taken  place,  and  ratifications  exchanged,  within  six  months 
from  its  date,  was,  for  reasons  unknown  to  our  government,  delayed  by 
Spain  long  beyond  that  time. 

During  this  period  of  suspense  there  was  much  speculation  as  to  the 
cause  of  the  delay.     Some  ascribed  it  to  the  interference  of  the  British 


CESSION    OF    FLORIDA.  303 

government,  -which  was  averse  to  the  cession  of  the  Floridas  to  the 
United  States ;  and  it  was  suspected  that  a  secret  arrangement  was  in 
progress  between  the  governments  of  Spain  and  Great  Britain  to  pre- 
vent the  stipulated  transfer  of  the  treaty.  It  was  rumored  on  the 
authority  of  letters  from  abroad,  that,  to  an  existing  treaty  between 
England  and  Spain,  certain  secret  articles  were  attached  really  ceding 
Florida  to  Great  Britain,  on  consideration  that  she  should  guaranty  to 
Spain  her  other  American  colonies.  Apprehensions  of  a  war  between  the 
United  States  and  Spain  prevailed  in  England  and  France,  as  well  as  in 
this  country  ;  and  certain  movements  under  the  direction  of  our  govern- 
ment, were  regarded  as  indications  of  a  design  to  be  prepared  for  such 
an  emergency. 

Many  of  our  citizens  were  in  favor  of  taking  possession  of  the  terri- 
tory without  waiting  farther  for  the  ratification,  believing  that  the  act 
would  be  justified  by  the  unredressed  injuries  we  had  sufi'ered.  At 
length,  pursuant  to  the  recommendation  of  the  president  in  his  annual 
message,  the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  on  the  8th  of  March,  1820, 
made  a  report  on  the  subject,  accompanied  by  a  bill,  "  requiring  the 
president  to  take  possession  of  and  occupy  the  territories  of  East  and 
West  Florida."  But  before  any  decisive  action  was  taken  upon  the  bill, 
information  having  been  received  by  the  president,  that  a  new  minister 
had  been  appointed  to  the  United  States  with  power  to  settle  all  dififer- 
ences,  and  the  governments  of  England,  France  and  Russia  having 
interposed  their  good  offices  to  promote  the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  as 
well  as  expressed  a  desire  that  our  government  would  delay  any  measure 
tending  to  disturb  the  peace  between  the  United  States  and  Spain ;  the  pre- 
sident communicated  the  same  to  congress,  with  the  suggestion  to  postpone 
a  decision  on  the  questions  depending  with  Spain,  until  the  next  session. 

The  new  minister,  General  Yives,  arrived  about  the  first  of  April. 
He  mentioned,  as  reasons  sufficiently  valid  to  exonerate  the  king  from 
the  obligation  of  ratifying  the  treaty,  the  hostility  pursued  against  the 
Spanish  dominions,  and  the  property  of  their  inhabitants,  by  American 
citizens;  the  decisions  of  several  courts  of  the  union;  and  the  criminal 
expedition  set  on  foot  for  the  invasion  of  the  Spanish  possessions  in 
North  America,  when  the  ratification  was  still  pending.  Upon  these 
points  he  asked  for  explanations,  and  a  pledge  to  take  measures  to 
repress  these  excesses,  and  to  prevent  any  invasion  of  Spanish  posses- 
sions ;  and  to  form  no  relations  with  the  revolted  Spanish  provinces 
in  South  America.  These  demands,  he  said,  would  have  been  long  since 
communicated  through  our  minister  at  Madrid,  (Mr.  Forsyth,)  if  he  had 
not  expressed  himself  in  terms  disrespectful  to  his  majesty. 

Explanations,    satisfactory   to    General   Vivos,   were   made  by   Mr. 


304  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Adams  on  the  points  presented,  except  tliat  relating  to  the  southern  pro- 
vinces, our  government  being  unwilling  to  contract  an  engagement  not 
to  form  any  relations  with  them.  The  answer  to  this  point  was  commu- 
nicated to  the  king ;  and,  if  it  should  be  received  by  him  as  satisfactory, 
the  treaty  would  probably  be  ratified.  The  ratification  took  place  on 
the  24th  of  October,  1820;  and  the  treaty  was  proclaimed  by  the  presi- 
dent on  the  22d  of  February,  1821,  precisely  two  years  from  its  date. 


CHAPTEE  XXII. 

INVESTIGATION    OP    THE    AFFAIRS    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES    BANK. OPINION 

OF  THE    SUPREME    COURT    ON   ITS  CONSTITUTIONALITY. DECISION  OF  THE 

CIRCUIT     COURT. — JUDICIAL    DECISION    ON    BANKRUPT    LAWS QUESTION 

OF    INTERNAL    IMPROVEMENTS. 

The  public  mind  had  become  much  excited  by  the  refusal  of  the  bank 
of  the  United  States  to  receive  the  notes  of  its  branches,  except  in  pay- 
ment of  debts  due  to  the  United  States,  and  by  sundry  acts  of  alleged 
mismanagement  on  the  part  of  the  directors  highly  injurious  to  the  pub- 
lic interest.  The  dissatisfaction  with  the  bank  had  become  so  general 
as  to  induce  congress  to  institute  an  investigation  of  its  affairs  and 
management. 

The  inquiry  was  moved  by  John  C.  Spencer,  of  New  York,  on  the 
25th  of  November,  1818,  who,  as  chairman  of  the  committee  of  investi- 
gation, on  the  16th  of  January,  1819,  made  a  very  elaborate  report, 
reviewing  minutely  the  transactions  of  the  bank,  and  expressing  the 
opinion  that  it  had  in  several  instances  violated  its  charter.  The  com- 
mittee also  reported  a  bill  for  the  better  regulation  of  the  election  of  the 
directors.  No  other  remedial  measures  were  recommended,  as,  by  the 
provisions  of  the  charter,  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  had  full  power  to 
apply  them,  which  it  was  presumed  would  be  done,  should  the  directors 
persist  in  a  course  of  conduct  which  should  require  it. 

Subsequently,  February  1,  the  same  gentleman  presented  a  resolution 
requiring  the  corporation,  on  or  before  the  1st  of  July,  to  declare  their 
consent  to  certain  propositions  providing  more  stringent  regulations  in 
the  management  of  its  affairs ;  and  in  case  of  non-compliance,  the  secre- 
tary of  the  treasury  was  required  to  cause  all  the  public  deposits  to  be 
withdrawn  from  the  bank  and  its  branches  on  that  day,  and  the  attorney- 
general  was  required  to  sue  out  a  writ  of  scire  facias,  in  conformity  with 


AFFAIRS   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK.  305 

its  charter,  calling  upon  the  corporation  to  show  cause  why  its  charter 
should  not  be  declared  forfeited. 

A  proposition  was  made  by  Mr.  Johnson,  of  Virginia,  to  repeal  the  char- 
ter ;  which  was  opposed  by  Mr.  Spencer.  The  immediate  destruction  of 
the  bank,  he  said,  would  ruin  thousands  who  had  become  its  debtors,  and 
inflict  a  wound  upon  the  public  credit,  and  tarnish  the  national  faith 
abroad.  The  resolutions  on  the  subject  were  referred  to  the  committee 
of  the  whole  on  the  bank  report,  all  of  which  were  subsequently  with- 
drawn, or  disagreed  to,  and  the  bill  reported  by  Mr.  Spencer,  with  amend- 
ments designed  to  render  its  provisions  more  effectual,  was  passed.  It 
was  believed  the  bank  had  been  too  much  managed  in  a  spirit  of  specu- 
lation. Reformation,  however,  and  not  destruction,  appears  to  have 
been  the  desire  even  of  those  most  unfriendly  to  the  institution. 

There  was  about  this  time  a  general  depreciation  of  state  bank  paper : 
and  many  of  the  state  banks  were  compelled  to  suspend  specie  payments. 
The  greatest  pressure  prevailed  in  the  south-western  states. 

In  March,  1819,  was  decided  in  the  supreme  court,  the  case  of  M'Cul- 
loh  against  the  state  of  Maryland,  involving  the  question  of  the  power 
of  a  state  to  impose  a  tax  on  a  branch  of  the  bank  of  the  United  States. 
The  plaintiff  was  president  of  the  branch  bank  in  Maryland,  which  had 
been  taxed  under  a  law  taxing  the  banks  of  that  state.  This  cause,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  court,  presented  two  questions :  (1.)  Has  congress 
poiwer  to  incorporate  a  bank  ?  (2.)  Can  a  state,  without  a  violation  of 
the  constitution,  tax  a  branch  bank  ? 

The  first  of  these  questions  was  decided  in  the  affirmative.  The 
arguments  upon  which  the  decision  was  founded,  are  substantially  those 
b}^  which  the  constitutionality  of  the  banks  of  1791  and  1816  were  main- 
tained in  congress.     [See  bank  of  the  United  States.] 

In  construing  the  constitution,  the  counsel  for  the  state  of  Maryland 
considered  it,  not  as  having  emanated  from  the  people,  but  as  the  act  of 
sovereign  and  independent  states.  And  the  powers  of  the  general  gov- 
ernment were  delegated  by  the  states,  and  must  be  exercised  in  subordi- 
nation to  the  states,  who  alone  were  supreme.  The  convention  which 
framed  the  constitution,  the  court  said,  was  indeed  elected  by  the  state 
legislatures.  But  it  was  a  mere  proposal  without  obligation,  until  it  had 
been  submitted,  not  to  the  state  governments,  but  to  a  convention  of 
delegates  in  each  state  chosen  by  the  people,  for  their  assent  and  ratifi- 
cation. Hence  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  was  properly  considered 
the  act  of  the  people  themselves.  The  confederation,  which  was  a  mert 
league,  was  formed  by  the  state  sovereignties.  The  "more  perfect 
union"  under  the  constitution  was  the  act  of  "  the  people  of  the  United 
States." 

20 


306  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  government  is  one  of  enumerated  powers,  and  possesses  those  only 
which  are  granted  to  it.  But,  though  limited  in  its  powers,  it  is  supreme 
within  its  sphere  of  action.  Among  its  enumerated  powers  is  not  that 
of  establishing  a  bank,  or  creating  a  corporation.  But  there  is  no  phrase 
in  the  instrument  which  excludes  incidental  or  implied  powers.  The 
confederation  authorized  the  exercise  of  such  powers  only  as  were 
expressly  granted.  But  the  word  "  expressly"  was  omitted  in  the  con- 
stitution. It  was  not  even  inserted  in  the  10th  article  of  amendment, 
which  was  framed  to  quiet  the  jealousies  which  had  been  excited  against 
that  instrument. 

The  great  powers  having  been  given  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  to  borrow 
mone}^,  to  regulate  commerce,  to  declare  and  conduct  a  war,  and  to  raise 
and  support  armies,  it  must  be  for  the  interest  of  the  nation  to  facilitate 
the  execution  of  these  powers.  And  it  was  not  to  be  presumed,  the 
court  said,  that  the  express  grant  o^f  these  powers  was  intended  to  clog 
and  embarrass  their  execution  by  withholding  the  most  appropriate 
means.  As  the  constitution  does  not  profess  to  prescribe  the  means  of 
executing  its  powers,  the  government  is  left  to  a  choice  of  means. 
Hence,  a  corporation,  if  it  is  essential  to  a  beneficial  exercise  of  granted 
powers,  may  be  created  for  this  purpose. 

Congress  has  "  power  to  make  all  laws  which  are  necessary  and  proper 
for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers,"  &c.  It  was  contended 
that  tliis  did  not  authorize,  in  all  cases,  the  choice  of  means,  but  the 
passing  of  such  laws  only  as  were  absolutely  indispensable,  and  without 
which  the  powers  granted  could  not  be  executed.  It  was  maintained,  on 
the  contrary,  by  the  court,  that  the  word  "  necessary"  did  not  always 
import  an  absolute  physical  necessity ;  that  in  common  use  it  meant  no 
more  than  that  one  thing  is  convenient,  or  useful,  or  essential  to  another; 
that  it  had  not  a  fixed  character  peculiar  to  itself ;  but  that,  like  many 
other  words,  it  admitted  of  all  degrees  of  comparison.  ...  A  thing 
might  be  necessary,  very  necessary,  or  absolutely  or  indispensably  neces- 
sary. The  constitution  prohibits  a  state  from  laying  "  imposts,  or  duties 
on  imports  or  exports,  except  what  may  be  absolutely  necessary  for  exe- 
cuting its  inspection  laws."  The  word  "  absolutely"  being  here  inserted, 
it  was  evident  the  framers  intended  to  give  a  different  meaning  to  the 
word  "  necessary"  in  this  place  from  that  given  to  it  when  granting 
power  "  to  make  all  laws  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execu- 
tion" the  powers  of  the  general  government. 

Against  the  right  of  a  state  to  tax  the  bank,  it  was  argued,  that,  if 
congress  could  create,  it  could  of  course  continue  a  bank.  But  the  power 
of  taxing  it  by  the  states  might  be  so  exercised  as  to  destroy  it.  Taxa- 
tion had  been  claimed,  on  the  part  of  the  state,  as  an  absolute  power, 


"DECISION   OF  THE    CIRCTTIT    COURT.  307 

%nd,  like  otlier  sovereign  powers,  was  trusted  to  the  discretion  of  those 
who  used  it.  But  the  sovereignty  of  the  state,  in  the  article  of  taxation 
itself,  is  subordinate  to,  and  may  be  controlled  by.  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

It  was  contended  on  the  part  of  the  state  of  Maryland,  not  that  the 
states  may  resist  a  law  of  congress,  but  that  they  may  exercise  their 
acknowledged  powers  upon  it ;  and  that  the  constitution  leaves  them  this 
right  in  the  confidence  that  they  will  not  abuse  it. 

The  court  admitted  that  the  power  of  taxation  was  essential  to  the 
very  existence  of  government,  and  might  be  exercised  on  objects  to  which 
it  was  applicable,  to  the  utmost  extent  to  which  the  government  might 
choose  to  carry  it.  And  the  fact  that,  in  imposing  a  tax,  the  legislature 
acts  upon  itself,  as  well  as  upon  its  constituents,  and  the  influence  of  the 
latter  over  their  representatives,  were  deemed  a  sufficient  security  against 
the  abuse  of  this  unlimited  power  of  taxation  given  by  the  people  of  a 
state  to  their  government.  But  the  sovereignty  of  a  state  extends  only  to 
what  exists  by  its  own  authority,  but  not  to  the  means  employed  by  congress 
to  carry  into  execution  powers  conferred  on  that  body  by  the  people  of  the 
United  States.  These  powers  are  not  given  by  the  people  of  a  single  state, 
but  by  the  people  of  aU  the  states,  to  a  government  whose  laws,  made 
in  pursuance  of  the  constitution,  are  declared  to  be  supreme.  The  people 
of  a  state,  therefore,  can  not  confer  a  sovereignty  which  will  extend  over 
them.  Besides,  if  the  states  might  tax  one  instrument  employed  by  the 
government  in  executing  its  powers,  they  might  tax  any  and  every  other. 
They  might  tax  the  mails,  the  mint,  patent  rights,  papers  of  the  custom- 
house, judicial  process,  and  all  other  means  employed  by  the  government, 
to  an  excess  which  would  defeat  all  the  ends  of  government. 

In  view  of  these  and  other  reasons,  the  court  unanimously  declared 
the  law  of  Maryland  imposing  a  tax  on  the  bank  of  the  United  States, 
unconstitutional  and  void.  This  opinion,  however,  did  not  deprive  the 
states  of  any  resources  which  they  originally  possessed.  The  real  pro- 
perty of  the  bank,  and  the  interest  held  in  the  bank  by  citizens  of  Mary- 
land, were  liable  to  taxation. 

Another  case  of  taxation  occurred  in  the  state  of  Ohio ;  and  a  suit 
was  brought  before  the  United  States  circuit  court  by  the  bank  against 
the  officers  of  the  state  for  the  recovery  of  the  money.  A  law  had  been 
enacted  in  that  state,  by  which  it  was  provided,  that,  if  the  branches  at 
Cincinnati  and  Chillicothe  did  not  cease  their  operations  by  the  first  of 
September,  1819,  a  tax  of  $100,000  should  be  levied  on  the  bank.  On 
the  15th  of  September,  a  bill  in  chancery,  issued  from  the  United  States 
circuit  court,  was  served  on  the  auditor  of  the  state,  who  was  directed 
to  answer  to  the  bill  of  complaint,  praying  for  an  injunction  against  hia 


THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

proceeding  under  the  law  of  the  state  to  tax  the  bank  of  the  United 
States.  On  the  same  day,  the  auditor  proceeded  to  charge  the  bank 
with  the  sum  of  $100,000 ;  one-half  on  each  of  the  branches  above  men- 
tioned, and  directed  the  tax  to  be  collected.  The  collector,  with  two 
assistants,  entered  the  branch  at  Chillicothe,  and  demanded  payment, 
which  was  refused ;  whereupon  they  entered  the  vaults,  and  took  out 
specie  and  paper  to  the  amount  of  $100,000,  and  conveyed  the  money  to 
the  state  treasury. 

A  protracted  litigation  ensued.  A  communication  on  the  subject  was 
made  by  the  state  auditor  to  the  legislature,  and  resolutions,  reported 
by  a  joint  committee,  were  adopted  by  large  majorities,  (1.)  Approving 
the  doctrines  of  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  of  1798  and 
1799.  (2.)  Protesting  against  the  doctrines  of  the  federal  circuit  court 
sitting  in  that  state  as  being  in  direct  violation  of  the  11th  amendment 
of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  (3.)  Asserting,  and  resolving 
to  maintain,  the  right  of  the  states  to  tax  the  business  and  property  of 
any  private  corporation  of  trade  incorporated  by  congress,  and  transact- 
ing its  business  within  any  state.  (4.)  Declaring  the  bank  of  the  United 
States  to  be  a  private  corporation  of  trade.  (5.)  Protesting  against  the 
doctrine,  that  the  political  rights  and  powers  of  the  separate  states,  may 
be  settled  in  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  so  as  to  conclude 
and  bind  them,  in  cases  contrived  between  individuals,  and  in  which  none 
of  them  is  a  party  direct. 

A  decision  was  at  length  made,  September,  1821,  in  the  circuit  court 
of  the  United  States,  decreeing  the  restoration  of  the  $100,000  which 
had  been  seized,  with  interest  on  the  specie  part  of  it,  (the  specie  being 
nearly  $20,000,)  and  granting  a  perpetual  injunction  against  the  collec- 
tion of  any  tax  in  future  under  the  act  of  Ohio. 

Another  important  decision  of  the  supreme  court  about  this  time,  was 
on  the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  state  bankrupt  and  insolvent 
laws.  The  case  was  that  of  Sturges  against  Crowninshield ;  the  defend- 
ant pleading  a  discharge  under  "  an  act  for  the  benefit  of  insolvent 
debtors  and  their  creditors,"  passed  by  the  legislature  of  New  York  in 
ISl'l. 

On  the  several  questions  which  arose  in  this  case,  the  opinions  of  the 
ceurt  were,  (1.)  That,  in  the  absence  of  any  uniform  laws  of  congress  on 
the  subject  of  bankruptcies,  authorized  by  the  constitution,  the  states 
may  pass  a  bankrupt  law,  provided  that  it  does  not  violate  that  provision 
of  the  constitution  which  declares,  that  "  no  state  shall  pass  any  law 
impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts."  (2.)  That  the  law  of  New  York, 
which  not  only  liberates  the  person  of  the  debtor,  but  discharges  him 
from  all  liability  for  any  debt  previously  contracted,  on  his  surrendering 
his  property,  is  clearly  a  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts. 


QUESTION    OF    INTERNAL    IMPROVEMENTS  309 

The  court  made  a  distinction  between  ihS obligation  cf  a  contract  and 
the  remedy  to  enforce  that  obligation.  The  remedy  might  be  modified 
without  impairing  the  obligation.  Hence,  a  law  requiring  the  imprison- 
ment of  an  insolvent  debtor  may  be  repealed.  Imprisonment  of  an 
insolvent  debtor  being  no  part  of  the  contract,  the  relief  of  the  prisoner 
does  not  impair  its  obligation. 

This  construction  of  the  constitution  did  not  extend  to  statutes  of 
limitation,  and  laws  against  usury.  Statutes  of  limitation  relate  to  the 
remedies  furnished  in  the  courts,  and  establish  that  certain  circumstances 
shall  amount  to  evidence  that  a  contract  has  been  performed,  rather  than 
dispense  with  its  performance.  But  if  a  law  were  passed  which  should 
limit  to  six  years  the  obligation  of  a  contract  previously  made,  there 
would  be  little  doubt  of  its  unconstitutionality.  And  so  with  respect  to 
usury  and  other  laws.  So  far  as  they  affect  contracts  already  made, 
they  are  deemed  unconstitutional  and  void. 

The  subject  of  internal  improvements  by  the  general  government,  has 
received  the  attention  of  our  statesmen  from  an  early  period  of  the  gov- 
ernment under  the  constitution ;  and  has  often  been  elaborately  discussed 
in  congress,  and  in  documents  emanating  from  the  highest  official 
sources.  In  1807,  the  attention  of  the  senate  was  directed  to  this  sub- 
ject ;  and  in  pursuance  of  a  resolution  of  that  body,  the  secretary  of  the 
treasury,  Mr.  Gallatin,  made  an  able  and  valuable  report.  And  reports 
have  since  been  made,  at  different  times,  recommending  some  system  of 
internal  improvements. 

On  the  3d  of  March,  1817,  the  day  which  terminated  the  14th  con- 
gress and  Mr.  Madison's  administration,  the  bill  was  returned  with  the 
executive  veto,  on  the  ground  of  its  unconstitutionality. 

Anticipating  a  revival  of  the  subject  of  internal  improvement,  Mr. 
Monroe,  in  his  first  annual  message,  took  occasion  to  express  his  opinion 
in  advance,  against  the  right  of  congress  to  establish  such  a  system  of 
improvement.  Owing,  probably,  to  these  executive  communications,  the 
subject,  for  several  years,  seems  to  have  received  little  attention  from 
congress. 

At  the  session  of  1821-1822,  memorials  and  petitions  from  several 
states,  soliciting  the  aid  of  the  general  government  in  works  of  internal 
improvement,  were  presented  to  congress,  and  referred  to  the  committee 
on  roads  and  canals  in  the  house  of  representatives,  who,  on  the  2d  of 
January,  1822,  made  a  favorable  report,  designating  the  "national  ob- 
jects which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  committeCj  claim  the  first  attention  of 
the  government."  With  the  report  was  a  bill,  authorizing  the  president 
to  cause  to  be  made  the  necessary  surveys,  plans,  and  estimates  of  these 
objects,  and  of  such  other  routes  for  roads  and  canals  as  he  might  deem 
c^  'national  importance  in  a  commercial  or  military  point  of  view. 


310  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Among  the  advantages  of  a  well  regulated  system  cf  internal  improve- 
ments, the  committee,  in  their  report,  mention  the  "  regular  trade  in 
the  exchange  of  manufactured  articles  for  raw  materials,"  which  would 
take  place,  and  the  "  nation's  receiving  within  itself  the  whole  benefit 
usually  gained  between  old  and  new  countries  ;"  it  being  admitted  by 
the  ablest  writers  on  political  economy,  that  the  most  important  branch 
of  the  commerce  of  a  nation  was  that  which  is  carried  on  between  the 
inhabitants  of  the  towns  and  those  of  the  country.  This  trade  was 
attended  with  less  risk  than  the  foreign,  which  is  always  liable  to  be  dis- 
turbed by  war  and  the  fluctuating  policy  of  other  nations.  The  various 
talents  and  inclinations  of  the  citizens  would  be  called  into  activity,  and 
a  greater  amount  of  labor  insured  to  the  nation ;  and  the  ready  inter- 
eoTlrse  between  the  different  parts  of  the  country,  would  produce  an 
identity  of  interest  and  fraternity  of  feeling,  which  would  strengthen  the 
bonds  of  the  union.  The  lines  of  communication  contemplated  would 
benefit  nearly  every  state  in  the  union ;  yet  no  one  or  two  states  had 
sufficient  inducements  to  furnish  the  means  to  construct  any  one  of  these 
works.  Objects  so  important  to  the  welfare  and  defense  of  the  nation 
must  be  made  by  the  general  government,  or  their  construction  was 
scarcely  to  be  expected. 

In  an  additional  report,  (April  26,)  the  committee  expressed  the 
opinion,  that  the  time  had  arrived  when  the  national  improvements  ought 
to  be  commenced  ;  and  pointed  out  their  benefits  to  the  nation.  They 
considered  the  national  resources  sufficient  at  least  to  commence  the 
surveys  and  estimates  of  the  more  important  works,  which  would  require 
several  years ;  and  as  our  finances  should  improve,  the  improvements 
might  be  prosecuted  to  completion.  The  committee  did  not  enter  largely 
into  a  discussion  of  the  power  of  congress  on  the  subject.  They  be- 
lieved, however,  that  the  constitution  alone  could  confer  the  power ;  and 
that  the  consent  of  the  states  was  not  necessary  to  its  constitutional  exer- 
cise. If  congress  had  no  power  to  construct  roads  and  canals,  and  main- 
tain a  control  over  them,  it  had  no  power  to  purchase  lands  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  them ;  but  it  had  been  the  practice  of  congress  to  allow 
to  the  new  states  five  per  cent,  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public 
lands  to  be  laid  out  in  the  construction  of  roads  and  canals ;  three-fifths 
having  been  generally  expended  within  the  states,  and  two-fifths  under 
the  direction  of  congress,  in  making  roads  leading  to  the  states.  The 
committee  mentioned  several  works  authorized  during  the  administrations 
of  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr.  Madison,  one  of  which  was  the  opening  of  a 
road  passing  through  a  state,  and  without  asking  its  consent.  And  they 
asked :  "  How  is  it  possible  to  reconcile  these  acts  with  the  idea  that 
congress  possesses  no  power  to  construct  roads  and  canals  ?" 


QUESTION    OF    INTERNAL    IMPROVEMENTS.  311 

The  committee,  to  strengthen  their  positions,  alluded  also  to  the  i  eport 
of  the  secretary  of  war,  (Mr.  Calhoun,)  of  the  7th  of  January,  1819,  in 
compliance  with  a  resolution  of  the  house  of  representatives  adopted  at 
the  preceding  session,  instructing  him  to  report  at  the  next  session  "  a 
plan  for  the  application  of  such  means  as  are  within  the  power  of  con- 
gress for  the  purpose  of  opening  aad  constructing  such  roads  and  canals 
as  may  deserve  and  require  the  aid  of  government,  with  a  view  to  mili- 
tary operations  in  time  of  war  ;"  together  with  such  information  on  the 
subject  as  he  might  deem  material  to  the  objects  of  the  resolution. 

The  secretary,  in  his  report,  did  not  discuss  the  constitutional  ques- 
tion ;  his  object  being  chiefly  to  show  the  utility  of  a  system  of  roads 
and  canals,  and  to  designate  the  several  routes  in  different  parts  of  the 
union,  which  he  deemed  essential  to  the  defense  and  prosperity  of  the 
nation.  From  the  general  tenor  of  the  report,  however,  it  has  been  in- 
ferred, that  he  considered  the  construction  of  the  works  therein  men- 
tioned within  the  power  of  congress.  He  said :  "  A  judicious  system 
of  roads  and  canals,  constructed  for  the  convenience  of  commerce,  and 
the  transportation  of  the  mail  only,  without  any  reference  to  military 
operations,  is  itself  among  the  most  efficient  means  for  '  the  more  com- 
plete defense  of  the  United  States.'  Without  adverting  to  the  fact,  that 
the  roads  and  canals  which  such  a  system  would  require,  are,  with  few 
exceptions,  precisely  those  which  would  be  required  for  the  operations  of 
war,  such  a  system,  by  consolidating  our  union,  increasing  our  wealth  and 
fiscal  capacity,  would  add  greatly  to  our  resources  in  war." 

Referring  to  the  difficulties  experienced  during  the  late  war,  from  the 
want  of  these  improvements,  he  said  :  "  As  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to 
profit  by  experience,  so  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  prevent  a  re- 
currence to  a  similar  state  of  things,  by  the  application  of  a  portion  of 
our  means  to  the  construction  of  such  roads  and  canals  as  are  required 
'  with  a  view  to  military  operations  in  time  of  war,  the  transportation  of 
the  munitions  of  war,  and  the  more  complete  defense  of  the  United 
States.'  "  And  in  carrying  out  the  plan,  he  suggested  "  as  the  basis  of 
the  system,  and  the  first  measure  in  the  plan,  that  congress  should  direct 
such  survey  and  estimate  to  be  made,  and  the  result  to  be  laid ,  before 
them  as  soon  as  practicable." 

The  committee  did  not  deem  it  expedient  J;o  recommend  the  immediate 
prosecution  of  any  work,  and  concluded  their  report  with  a  resolution, 
declaring  it  expedient  at  present  only  to  procure  the  surveys,  plans  and 
estimates  proposed  by  the  bill.     This  bill,  however,  did  not  become  a  law. 

At  the  same  session,  a  bill  "  for  the  preservation  and  repair  of  the 
Cumberland  road,"  passed  by  both  houses,  was  returned  to  the  house  of 
representatives  by  the  president,  with  the  objection  "  that  congress  do 


312  THE   AMERICAN   STATESMAN, 

not  possess  the  power,  under  the  constitution,  to  pass  such  a  law."  The 
substance  of  his  objection  is  contained  in  the  following  paragraph : 

"  A  power  to  establish  turnpikes  with  gates  and  tolls,  and  to  enforce 
the  collection  of  tolls  by  penalties,  implies  a  power  to  adopt  and  execute 
a  complete  system  of  internal  improvement.  A  right  to  impose  duties 
to  be  paid  by  all  persons  on  a  certain  road,  and  on  horses  and  carriages, 
as  is  done  by  this  bill,  involves  the  right  to  take  the  land  from  the  pro- 
prietor, on  a  valuation,  and  to  pass  laws  for  the  protection  of  the  road 
from  injuries ;  and  if  it  exists  as  to  one  road,  it  exists  as  to  any  other,  and 
to  as  many  roads  as  congress  may  think  proper  to  establish.  A  right  to 
legislate  for  one  of  these  purposes,  is  a  right  to  legislate  for  the  others. 
It  is  a  complete  right  of  jurisdiction  and  sovereignty  for  all  the  purposes 
of  internal  improvement,  and  not  merely  the  right  of  applying  money, 
under  the  power  vested  in  congress  to  make  appropriations,  under  which 
power^  with  the  consent  of  the  states  through  which  this  road  passes,  the 
work  was  originally  commenced,  and  has  been  so  far  executed.  I  am  of 
opinion  that  congress  do  not  possess  this  power ;  that  the  states,  indi- 
vidually, can  not  grant  it :  for,  although  they  may  assent  to  the  appro- 
priation of  money  within  their  limits  for  such  purposes,  they  can  grant 
no  power  of  jurisdiction  or  sovereignty,  by  special  compacts  with  the 
United  States.  This  power  can  be  granted  only  by  an  amendment  to. 
the  constitution,  and  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  it." 

The  president  did  not,  in  this  message,  assign  the  reasons  on  which  his 
objections  were  founded,  but  alluded  to  a  paper  expressing  his  senti- 
ments, which  he  had  occasionally,  as  his  attention  had  been  drawn  to  the 
subject,  committed  to  writing.  This  paper,  one  of  the  longest  ever  com- 
municated to  congress,  was,  on  the  same  day,  transmitted  to  the  house. 
It  contains  a  very  elaborate  review  of  the  articles  of  confederation  and 
the  constitution,  tracing  the  origin  of  the  state  and  national  governments, 
and  critically  examining  their  respective  powers.  And  the  conclusion  at 
which  the  president  arrived  was,  that  congress  had  not  the  right  to  adopt 
and  execute  a  system  of  internal  improvement ;  but  not  doubting  "  that 
improvements  for  great  national  purposes  would  be  better  made  by  the 
national  government  than  by  the  governments  of  the  several  states,"  he 
expressed  the  opinion,  that  "  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  ought  to 
be  recommended  to  the  several  states  for  their  adoption." 


THE   MISSOURI    COMPROMISE.  313 


CHAPTEK   XXIII. 

THE    MISSOURI    COMPROMISE. — ADMISSION    OF    MAINE    AND   MISSOURI   INTO 
THE    UNION. 

During  the  session  of  1819-20,  was  passed  the  act  to  admit  the  new 
state  of  Missouri  into  the  union.  A  bill  for  this  purpose  had  been  in- 
troduced at  the  preceding  session.  In  its  progress  in  the  house,  Gen. 
Tallmadge,  of  New  York,  moved  an  amendment  prohibiting  the  farther 
introduction  of  slavery  within  the  territory,  and  requiring  that  all 
children  born  therein  after  its  admission,  should  be  free  at  the  age  of 
twenty-five  years.  The  amendment  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  73  to  67, 
but  was  disagreed  to  in  the  senate ;  and  the  bill  was  lost. 

At  the  next  session,  (December  7,  1819,)  a  memorial  fjfom  the  people 
of  the  district  of  Maine,  until  then  a  part  of  the  state  of  Massachusetts, 
praying  to  be  admitted  into  the  union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  states,  with  a  copy  of  the  constitution  formed  for  the  state,  was 
presented  to  the  house.  At  the  same  time  was  presented  a  memorial 
from  the  people  of  Missouri,  asking  to  be  authorized  to  form  a  consti- 
tution, and  to  be  admitted  as  a  state.  A  bill  for  the  admission  of  Maine 
passed  the  house  without  material  opposition.  In  the  senate  its  progress 
was  arrested  by  Mr.  James  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  who  moved  an  amend- 
ment (February  3d,)  coupling  it  with  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Mis- 
souri without  any  restriction  as  to  slavery.  This  gave  rise  to  a  debate 
which  continued  till  near  the  close  of  the  session,  and  terminated  in  the 
famed  "  Missouri  compromise." 

In  the  house  on  the  26th  of  January,  Mr.  Taylor,  of  New  York, 
moved  an  amendment  to  the  Missouri  bill  of  that  body,  interdicting 
slavery  in  the  state ;  providing,  however,  that  fugitive  slaves  might  be 
reclaimed  within  the  same,  and  that  the  provision  should  not  alter  the 
condition  of  those  already  held  as  slaves  in  the  territory.  In  the  house 
also  the  debate  was  long  and  animated. 

On  the  16th  of  February,  in  the  senate,  the  proposed  junction  of  the 
two  states  into  one  bill  was  decided  in  the  affirmative,  23  to  2 1 ;  all  the 
senators  being  present  and  voting.  From  the  free  states,  Edwards  and 
Thomas,  the  two  senators  from  Illinois,  and  Taylor,  of  Indiana,  voted 
in  the  affirmative ;  and  from  the  slave  states,  the  Delaware  senators, 
Horsey  and  Van  Dyke,  voted  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  Thomas,  of  Illinois,  then  offered  an  amendment  to  the  Missouri 
branch  of  the  bill,  proposing  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all  that  territory 
ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  under  the  name  of  Louisiana, 


314  THE   AMERICAN   STATESMAN. 

lying  north  of  36  1-2  degrees  north  latitude,  except  within  the  limits 
of  the  proposed  state  of  Missouri.  The  next  day  the  amendment  was 
adopted,  34  to  10;  and  the  bill  was  ordered  to  a  third  reading,  24  to 
20.  From  the  free  states,  those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative,  were  Ed- 
wards and  Thomas,  of  Illinois,  Hunter,  of  Rhode  Island,  and  Parrott,  of 
New  Hampshire.  From  slave  states,  Macon,  of  North  Carolina,  and 
Smith,  of  South  Carolina. 

On  the  23d  of  February,  the  Maine  bill  having  been  returned  to  the 
house,  the  amendments  of  the  senate  were  disagreed  to ;  the  proposition 
to  annex  the  Missouri  bill  to  the  Maine  bill,  by  a  vote  of  93  to  72,  and 
the  compromise  section,  159  to  18:  and  a  message  announcing  the  fact 
was  sent  to  the  senate.  On  the  28th,  the  senate  refused  to  recede  from 
its  amendments ;  that  providing  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  being 
adhered  to  by  a  vote  of  23  to  21  ;  and  that  inhibiting  slavery,  by  33  to 
1 1  :  and  the  house  was  informed  of  the  determination  of  the  senate  to 
insist  on  its  amendments.  On  the  same  day,  the  house  again  voted  to 
insist  on  their  disagreement  to  the  amendments ;  to  the  first,  97  to  76  ; 
to  the  last,  embracing  the  compromise,  160  to  14:  and  the  senate  was 
informed  of  the  determination  of  the  house  to  disagree.  The  senate, 
then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Thomas,  appointed  a  committee  of  conference, 
consisting  of  Messrs.  Thomas,  Pinckney  and  Barbour.  The  conference 
was  the  next  day  (29th)  agreed  to  by  the  house,  and  a  committee  of  five 
appointed,  consisting  of  Messrs.  Holmes,  Taylor,  Lowndes,  Parker,  of 
Massachusetts,  and  Kinsey. 

In  the  house  of  represenatives,  the  Missouri  bill  as  amended  in  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  including  the  amendment  moved  by  Mr.  Taylor  the 
26th  of  January,  was  ordered  to  a  third  reading,  93  to  84 ;  and  on  the 
next  day,  (March  1st,)  was  passed,  91  to  82,  and  sent  to  the  senate  for 
concurrence,  when,  the  next  day,  the  restrictive  clause  was  stricken  out, 
and  the  senate's  compromise  clause  inserted,  and  returned  to  the  house 
of  representatives.  The  house,  before  any  vote  was  taken  upon  it,  re- 
ceived the  report  of  the  conference,  which  recommended,  (1.)  That  the 
senate  recede  from  its  amendments  to  the  Maine  bill,  that  is,  detach 
from  it  the  Missouri  branch  ;  (2.)  That  both  houses  strike  out  of  the 
Missouri  bill  the  restriction  upon  the  state;  (3.)  A  restriction  on  all 
other  territory  north  of  36  degrees  30  minutes.  The  committee  of  con- 
ference was  unanimous  in  this  report,  with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Taylor, 
of  the  committee  on  the  part  of  the  house,  who  did  not  concur  in  striking 
out  the  restriction. 

The  question  was  first  taken  on  striking  out  the  restriction  upon 
the  state,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative,  90  to  87;  the  speaker  not 
voting,  and  8  absent,  including  Mr.  Walker,  of  Kentucky,  deceased. 


THE   MISSOURI    COMPROMISE.  315 

If,  as  was  presamed,  five  of  the  absentees,  if  they  had  been  present, 
would  have  voted  against  concurring,  and  the  other  two  who  were  living 
would  have  voted  for  concurring,  the  question  would  have  been  deter- 
mined by  the  vote  of  the  speaker.  Before  taking  the  question  on  the 
second  amendment  of  the  senate,  (the  compromise,.)  Mr.  Taylor  moved 
an  amendment  by  striking  out  the  words,  "  36  degrees  30  minutes  north 
latitude,"  and  inserting  a  line  which  would  exclude  slavery  from  all  the 
territory  west  of  the  Mississippi,  except  Missouri  and  Arkansas,  and 
the  state  of  Louisiana.  To  avoid  taking  the  question  on  this  amend- 
ment, some  member  moved  the  previous  question.  The  motion  having 
been  sustained,  the  main  question  was  taken  on  concurring  With  the 
senate  in  inserting  the  clause  inhibiting  slavery  north  of  36  degrees  30 
minutes  north  latitude,  and  decided  in  the  afiirmative,  134  to  42. 

The  advocates  of  the  unrestricted  admission  of  Missouri  contended  that 
the  prohibition  of  slavery  would  place  her  on  an  unequal  footing  with 
the  other  states.  By  the  treaty  ceding  Louisiana  to  the  United  States, 
the  inhabitants  were  to  "  be  incorporated  into  the  union,  and  to  be 
admitted,  as  soon  as  possible,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  consti- 
tution, to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  advantages,  and  immunities  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States;"  and  congress  was  bqund,  in  good  faith, 
to  admit  Missouri  without  imposing  upon  her  citizens  terms  to  which 
they  did  not  consent.  Congress  had  not  the  right  to  prescribe  the  terms 
of  admission.  The  general  government  had  no  constitutional  right  to 
interfere  with  the  municipal  policy  of  a  state,  farther  than  was  necessary 
and  proper  to  carry  into  effect  the  powers  expressly  granted  to  that  gov- 
ernment. The  constitution  declared,  that  "  the  powers  not  delegated  to 
the  United  States  by  the  constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  states, 
are  reserved  to  the  states  respectively,  or  to  the  people."  The  right  to 
hold  slaves  was  one  of  these  rights ;  and  the  guaranty  applied  to  the 
new  states  as  well  as  to  the  original  states.  It  was  conceded  that  the 
right  of  congress  to  admit  new  states,  implied  the  power  to  refuse  admis- 
sion ;  but  it  did  not  give  the  right  to  impose  the  terms  of  admission. 

In  support  of  the  restriction  it  was  said,  that  congress,  under  the 
"  power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  respecting  the  terri- 
tory and  other  property  of  the  United  States,"  had  passed  laws  for  the 
survey  and  sale  of  the  public  lands,  and  the  division  of  them  into  terri- 
tories, and  had  established  governments  in  them.  The  power  to  make 
needful  rules  and  regulations  includes  the  power  to  determine  what  regu- 
lations are  necessary,  and  consequently,  the  power  to  prohibit  slavery,  if 
such  prohibition  shall  be  deemed  a  needful  regulation.  It  was  said,  too, 
that  the  power  to  admit  new  states  was  conferred  without  limitation  ; 
and  congress  might  admit  them  at  discretion  as  to  time,  terms  and  cir- 


316 


THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


cumstances.  No  new  state  could,  of  right,  demand  admission,  unless 
the  demand  was  founded  on  some  previous  engagement  with  the  United 
States.  Hence,  the  prohibition  of  slavery  might  be  made  a  condition  of 
admission. 

It  was  said,  farther,  that  the  exercise  of  this  power  had  been  sanc- 
tioned bj  congress.  The  ordinance  of  1787,  prohibiting  slavery  in  the 
North  Western  Territory,  passed  by  the  old  congress,  had  been  ratified 
by  the  new  congress  at  their  first  session  under  the  constitution ;  and 
new  states  had  been  admitted  in  conformity  to  the  "  articles  of  com- 
pact" embraced  in  the  ordinance,  one  of  which  was  that  which  excluded 
slavery.  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia  had, 
by  the  unanimous  vote  of  their  delegates,  approved  that  ordinance. 
North  Carolina  must  have  supposed  that  congress  possessed  the  power 
to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  new  territory,  having  made  the  grant  upon  the 
express  condition,  "  that  no  regulation  made,  or  to  be  made  by  congress, 
should  tend  to  emancipate  slaves."  Georgia,  also,  in  ceding  the  Missis- 
sippi territory,  had  made  a  similar  exception. 

It  was  also  said  to  be  an  error  to  represent  Missouri  as  now  entitled 
to  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  a  state.  These  she  would  not  have 
until  she  had  a  constitution  sanctioned  by  congress,  and  an  act  of  admis- 
sion had  been  passed. 

In  reply  to  those  who  claimed  for  the  people  of  Missouri  the  right  to 
judge  for  themselves  in  the  matter  of  excluding  slavery,  it  was  said,  that 
congress  had  a  right  to  judge  whether  it  would  be  for  the  good  of  the 
union  to  admit  new  states  in  which  slavery  should  be  permitted.  The 
interests  of  the  whole  nation  were  afi'ected  by  the  character  and  condi- 
tion of  those  who  were  to  be  members  of  the  political  family. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  observe,  that  in  a  debate  of  nearly  two  months' 
duration,  a  large  number  of  members  must  have  participated.  Among 
the  senators  who  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  discussion,  were  King,  of 
New  York,  Morrill  and  Burrell,  of  New  Hampshire,  Mellen,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Roberts  and  Lowrie,  of  Pennsylvania,  in  favor  of  the  proposed 
restrictions;  and  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  Smith,  of  South  Carolina, 
Macon,  of  North  Carolina,  and  Thomas,  of  Illinois,  in  opposition. 
In  the  house,  John  W.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  Edwards,  of  Connecticut, 
Fuller  and  Cushman,  of  Massachusetts,  Plumer  and  Claggett,  of  New 
Hampshire,  Hendricks,  of  Indiana,  and  Sergeant,  of  Pennsylvania,  in 
favor  of  restriction ;  and  Holmes,  of  Massachusetts,  (District  of  Maine,) 
Baldwin  of  Pennsylvania,  Clay,  of  Kentucky,  Handolph,  Tyler  and 
Smyth,  of  Virginia,  Lowndes  and  Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina,  and 
McLane,  of  Delaware,  in  opposition. 

The  bill  for  the  admission  of  Maine  having  become  disconnected  from 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE.  317 

the  Missouri  bill,  all  obstruction  to  its  passage  was  removed ;  and  tbe 
people  of  the  district  having  already  adopted  an  approved  constitution^ 
the  act  of  admission  was  complete.  Different,  however,  was  the  case  of 
the  people  of  Missouri.  Their  constitution  was  not  presented  until  the 
next  session.  On  the  23d  of  November,  1820,  Mr.  Lowndes,  of  South 
Carolina,  from  the  committee  to  whom  it  was  referred,  in  their  report  to 
the  house,  alluded  to  a  provision  which  directed  the  legislature  to  paso 
laws  "to  prevent  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  from  coming  to,  or  set- 
tling in,  the  state,"  which  might  be  construed  to  apply  to  persons  of  this 
class  who  were  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  whose  exclusion  was 
deemed  repugnant  to  the  federal  constitution,  which  declares  that  *'  the 
citizens  of  each  state  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immuni- 
ties of  citizens  in  the  several  states."  But  the  committee,  preferring  to 
leave  this  question  for  judicial  decision  whenever  a  case  requiring  it 
should  arise,  reported  a  resolution  for  the  admission  of  Missouri. 

On  the  29th,  a  committee  of  the  senate,  Mr.  Smith,  of  South  Caro- 
lina, chairman,  reported  a  similar  resolution.  Mr.  Eaton,  of  Tennessee, 
who  seems  to  have  entertained  doubts  of  the  constitutionality  of  the 
clause  alluded  to  in  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  house,  moved 
and  obtained  a  postponement ;  and,  on  the  6th  of  December,  offered  a 
proviso  to  the  resolution,  that  nothing  contained  therein  should  be  so 
construed  as  to  give  the  assent  of  congress  to  any  provision  in  the  con- 
stitution of  Missouri,  which  contravened  that  clause  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States  which  declares^  that  "  the  citizens  of  each  state 
shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the 
several  states."  The  question  on  this  amendment  was  postponed  to  the 
next  day;  when  Mr.  King,  of  New  York,  objected  to  the  proposed 
amendment,  expressing  the  opinion  that  the  proviso  would  not  weaken 
the  effect  of  the  offensive  article ;  and  the  senate,  after  having  negatived 
a  substitute  offered  by  Mr.  Wilson,  of  New  Jersey,  rejected  Mr.  Eaton's 
amendment,  21  to  24.  The  question  then  recurred  on  the  resolution 
itself,  and,  after  some  debate,  was  postponed  until  the  next  day,  and  was 
not  taken  until  the  1 1th.  Before  taking  the  question,  Mr.  Eaton  again 
offered  his  proviso,  which  was  adopted  by  a  bare  majority;  and  the  reso- 
lution so  amended,  was  agreed  to,  26  to  18.  With  the  exception  of  Mr. 
Macon,  of  North  Carolina,  all  those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were 
from  the  free  states.  From  the  free  states  voting  in  the  affirmative, 
were.  Chandler  and  Holmes,  of  Maine,  Edwards  and  Thomas,  of  Illi- 
nois, Parrot,  of  New  Hampshire,  and  Taylor,  of  Indiana. 

In  the  house,  Mr.  Lowndes'  resolution  was  taken  up  for  considera- 
tion on  the  6th,  and  debated  until  the  13th,  when  the  question  was  taken, 
and  the  resolution  rej*^cted,  79  to  93.     Besides  negativing  one  or  two 


318  T&E    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

proposed  amendments  similar  to  that  adopted  in  the  senate,  no  farther 
proceedings  were  had  upon  the  subject,  until  the  29th  of  January,  1821, 
when  the  amended  resolution  of  the  senate  was  taken  up.  Mr.  Clay 
supported  the  resolution.  Mr.  Randolph  moved  to  strike  out  the  pro- 
viso ;  and  amendments  were  subsequently  proposed,  at  different  times, 
by  Messrs.  Foot,  of  Connecticut,  Storrs,  of  New  York,  S.  Moore,  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  M'Lane,  of  Delaware,  designed  to  annul  or  expunge 
the  offensive  clause — all  of  which  were  rejected. 

On  the  2d  of  February,  Mr.  Clay,  anxious  to  make  a  last  effort  to 
settle  the  question,  moved  to  refer  the  senate's  resolution  to  a  commit- 
tee of  thirteen.  The  committee  was  appointed,  Mr.  Clay  being  chair- 
man, who,  on  the  10th,  reported  an  amendment,  admitting  Missouri  on 
condition  that  the  state  never  pass  a  law  excluding  from  the  state  any 
persons  the  citizens  of  any  other  state  of  the  union ;  and  upon  the 
assent  of  the  legislature  of  Missouri  to  this  condition,  communicated  to 
the  president  on  or  before  the  fourth  Monday  in  November  next,  he  was 
to  proclaim  the  fact ;  and  the  admission  of  the  state  was  to  be  there- 
upon complete.  The  question,  after  a  long  debate  in  committee  of  the 
whole,  was  taken  on  the  amendment,  (Feb.  12,)  and  decided  in  the  neg- 
ative, 64  to  73 ;  and,  after  rejecting  a  motion  of  Mr.  Storrs  to  postpone 
the  subject  indefinitely,  the  question  was  taken,  in  the  house,  on  concur- 
ring with  the  committee  of  the  whole  in  its  disagreement  to  the  report 
of  the  select  committee,  and  by  a  vote  of  83  to  86,  the  house  refused  to 
concur ;  and  the  amendment  of  the  select  committee  was  agreed  to.  But 
on  taking  the  question  on  ordering  the  resolution  to  a  third  reading,  a 
few  members  being  absent,  it  was  lost,  80  to  83.  So  the  whole  resolu- 
tion, with  the  amendment,  was  rejected. 

The  next  day,  (13th,)  Mr.  Livermore  of  New  Hampshire,  moved  to 
amend  the  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings,  by  striking  therefrom  the 
order  "  that  the  clerk  acquaint  the  senate  with  the  decision  of  the  house," 
that  he  might  move  a  reconsideration  of  the  decision ;  and  the  m.otion  waa 
agreed  to.  The  question  on  reconsideration  was  decided  in  the  affirma- 
tive, 101  to  66.  But  the  question  on  ordering  the  resolution  to  be 
engrossed  and  read  a  third  time,  was  lost,  82  to  88. 
,  In  the  house,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Clay,  on  the  20th,  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  meet  a  committee  on  the  part  of  the  senate,  to  consider 
and  report  on  the  expediency  of  providing  for  the  admission  of  Missouri, 
&c.  On  the  26th  of  February,  Mr.  Clay,  the  chairman  of  this  com- 
mittee, reported  a  resolution,  providing  "  that  Missouri  shall  be  admit- 
ted into  the  union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states,  upon  the 
fundamental  condition,  that  the  fourth  clause  of  the  twenty-sixth  sec- 
tion of  the  third  article  of  the  constitution  submitted  on  the  part  of  said 


ADMISSION    OF    MAINE    AND    MISSOURI,  319 

State  to  congress,  shall  never  be  construed  to  authorize  the  passage  of  any 
law,  by  which  any  citizen  of  either  of  the  states  of  this  union  shall  be 
excluded  from  the  enjoyment  of  any  of  the  privileges  and  immunities  to 
which  such  citizen  is  entitled  under  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States."  And  the  legislature  was  required,  by  a  public  act,  to  declare 
the  assent  of  the  state  to  this  condition,  and  to  transmit  to  the  presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  on  or  before  the  fourth  Monday  of  Novem- 
ber next,  an  authentic  copy  of  the  act ;  and  upon  the  public  announcement 
of  this  fact  by  the  president,  the  admission  of  the  state  was  to  be  con- 
sidered complete. 

The  resolution  had  its  several  readings  the  same  day,  and  was 
passed;  ayes,  87;  noes,  81.  It  was  sent  to  the  senate,  and  concurred 
in  by  that  body  on  the  28th,  28  to  14. 

Thus  was  consummated  a  measure  which,  in  respect  to  the  excitement  it 
produced,  and  its  influence  upon  our  national  destiny, has  no  parallel  in  the 
history  of  our  government.  The  whole  country  was  agitated.  In  anticipa- 
tion of  a  renewal  of  the  application  of  Missouri  for  admission  into  the 
union,  public  meetings  were  held  in  Boston,  New  York,  Trenton,  Philadel- 
phia, Baltimore,  and  many  other  places  ;  and  the  question  of  slavery — its 
effects  upon  the  public  prosperity,  the  power  and  duty  of  the  general  govern- 
ment in  relation  to  it,  and  the  means  of  preventing  its  extension,  were  dis- 
cussed. Resolutions  deprecating  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  new 
states  were  adopted;  and  memorials  to  congress,  remonstrating  against  the 
admission  of  Missouri  with  a  constitution  permitting  slavery,  were  exten- 
sivel}^  circulated.  The  legislatures  of  several  states  also  passed  resolutions 
on  the  subject,  asserting  the  right  of  congress  to  require  of  new  states  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  as  a  condition  of  their  admission  into  the  union, 
and  requesting  their  senators  and  representatives  in  congress  to  oppose 
the  admission  of  any  state  with  a  constitution  permitting  slavery.  The 
states  whose  legislatures  expressly  declared  the  constitutional  power  of 
congress  to  impose  the  terms  of  admission,  were  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Delaware. 

Nor  was  the  excitement  less  intense  in  the  southern  than  in  the  north- 
ern states.  Alarmed  by  the  attempt  made  at  the  preceding  session  of 
congress  to  impose  upon  Missouri  the  restriction  of  slavery  as  one  of 
the  terms  of  her  admission  into  the  union,  active  exertions  were  made 
to  counteract  the  anti-slavery  influence  at  the  north  which  would  again 
be  brought  to  bear  upon  congress.  Resolutions  were  passed  in  several 
of  the  slave  states,  declaring  that  congress  had  no  power  to  prescribe  to 
the  people  of  Missouri  the  terms  and  conditions  upon  which  they  should 
be  admitted  into  the  union,  and  that  congress  was  bound  in  good  faith 
to  admit  them  upon  equal  terms  with  the  existing  states. 


320  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE  FINANCES. THE    TARIFF  OF  1824. SPEECHES  OP  CLAY  AND  WEBSTER. 

The  18tli  congress  commenced  its  1st  session  December  1,  1823. 
Mr.  Clay,  who  was  again  a  member  of  the  house  of  representatives,  was 
chosen  speaker  by  139  votes  against  42  given  for  Mr.  Barbour,  speaker 
of  the  last  congress. 

The  message  of  the  president,  delivered  the  next  day,  presented  the 
state  of  public  affairs  in  greater  detail  than  was  usual  on  such  occasions. 
Among  the  subjects  noticed  was  the  favorable  condition  of  the  public 
finances;  the  balance  that  would  remain  in  the  treasury  on  the  1st  of 
January  ensuing,  being  estimated  at  nearly  nine  millions  of  dollars. 
Of  the  public  debt,  the  message  says :  "  On  the  1st  of  January,  1825, 
a  large  amount  of  the  war  debt,  and  a  part  of  the  revolutionary  debt, 
become  redeemable.  Additional  portions  of  the  former  will  continue  to 
become  redeemable  annually,  until  the  year  1835.  It  is  believed,  how- 
ever, that,  if  the  United  States  remain  at  peace,  the  whole  of  that  debt 
may  be  redeemed  by  the  ordinary  revenue  of  those  years  during  that 
period,  under  the  provision  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1817,  creating  the 
sinking  fund;  and  in  that  case,  the  only  part  of  the  debt  that  will 
remain  after  the  year  1835,  will  be  the  seven  millions  of  five  per  cent, 
stock  subscribed  to  the  bank  of  the  United  States,  and  the  three  per 
cent,  revolutionary  debt,  amounting  to  thirteen  millions  two  hundred 
and  ninety-six  thousand  and  ninety-nine  dollars  and  six  cents ;  both  of 
which  are  redeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  government." 

The  president  also  renewed  the  recommendation  to  the  last  congress, 
of  a  review  of  the  tariff  for  the  purpose  of  affording  additional  protec- 
tion to  manufactures ;  and  he  called  the  attention  of  congress  to  several 
specified  objects  of  internal  improvement,  which  would  require  appro- 
priations of  the  public  money.  And  as  congress  had  not  recommended 
to  the  states  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  vesting  in  the  general 
government  a  power  to  adopt  and  execute  a  system  of  internal  improve- 
ment, he  suggested  that  the  executive  be  authorized  to  enter  into  an 
arrangement  with  the  states  through  which  the  Cumberland  road  passes, 
"  to  establish  tolls,  each  within  its  limits,  for  the  purpose  of  defraying 
the  expense  of  future  repairs." 

Probably  the  most  important  measure  of  congress  at  this  session,  was 
the  revision  and  modification  of  the  tariff.     Since  1816,  the  subject  of 


THE    TARIFF.  321 

manufactures  seems  to  have  received  for  a  few  years  little  attention  from 
congress.  The  tariff  act  of  that  year,  protecting  few  important  manu- 
factures except  coarse  cottons,  afforded  but  a  limited  encouragement  to 
the  industry  of  the  nation.  Manufactures  were  languishing;  several 
large  establishments  were  closed ;  and  in  many  others  great  numbers  of 
workmen  had  been  discharged.  Agriculture  was  scarcely  more  pros- 
perous. The  foreign  demand  for  American  grain,  which  had  been  kept 
up  by  the  wars  of  Europe  for  a  period  of  about  twenty-five  years,  had 
nearly  ceased  with  the  restoration  of  peace.  This,  together  with  the 
limited  and  constantly  diminishing  home  market,  had  reduced  the  prices 
of  our  surplus  bread  stuffs,  below  the  cost  of  production  and  transporta- 
tion to  the  sea  board.  Public  meetings  were  held,  and  resolutions  were 
passed ;  associations  were  formed ;  and  petitions  were  presented  to  con- 
gress for  relief.  Action  was  also  taken  on  the  subject  by  the  legisla- 
tures of  some  of  the  states,  and  their  representatives  were  requested  to 
endeavor  to  procure  such  modifications  of  the  tariff  as  should  encourage 
the  employment  of  capital  and  industry  in  home  manufactures. 

With  a  view  to  this  object,  a  bill  was  reported  in  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives at  the  session  of  1819-1820,  and  passed  that  body,  90  to  69. 
The  bill  was  defeated  in  the  senate,  on  a  motion  to  postpone  it  till  the 
next  session,  by  a  vote  of  22  to  21.  For  the  reason  which  will  hero- 
after  appear,  the  votes  of  the  several  states  in  the  house  of  representa- 
tives are  here  given,  as  follows  : 

Massachusetts,  (including  Maine:)  Ayes,  10;  noes,  6;  absent,  4. 
New  Hampshire:  Noes,  5;  absent,  1.  Rhode  Island:  Ayes,  2.  Con- 
necticut: Ayes,  6;  noes,  1.  Vermont:  Ayes,  1;  noes,  2;  absent,  3. 
New  York  :  Ayes,  25  ;  absent,  2.  New  Jersey :  Ayes,  6.  Pennsyl- 
vania :  Ayes,  22;  noes,  1.  Delaware:  Noes,  2.  Maryland:  Ayes,  1; 
noes,  5;  absent,  3.  Virginia:  Ayes,  1;  noes,  15;  absent,  7.  North 
Carolina:  Ayes,  1;  noes,  11;  absent,  1.  South  Carolina:  Ayes,  1; 
noes,  6;  absent,  2.  Georgia:  Noes,  5 ;  absent,  1.  Kentucky:  Ayes, 
4 ;  noes,  3  ;  absent,  2.  Tennessee :  Noes,  6.  Ohio  :  Ayes,  6.  Indi- 
ana :  Ayes,  1.  Illinois:  Ayes,  1.  Louisiana:  Noes,  1.  Mississippi: 
Noes,  1.     Alabama:  Noes,  1. 

The  subject  was  again  brought  before  congress,  at  several  successive 
sessions,  but  without  success,  until  the  year  1824.  In  that  year,  a  bill 
proposing  t'o  increase  the  duties  on  imports,  after  a  discussion  of  more 
than  two  months,  passed  the  house,  April  16th,  by  a  small  majority: 
yeas,  107;  nays,  102.  In  the  senate,  some  amendments  were  made 
to  the  bill,  to  which  the  house  disagreed.  The  difference  between  the 
two  houses  was  subsequently  settled  by  a  committee  of  conference.  The 
bill  passed  the  senate,  25  to  22.     Of  those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative 

21 


322  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

were  Messrs.  Benton,  Dickerson,  Jackson,  Eaton,  Johnson,  of  Kentucky, 
and  Yan  Buren.     Mr.  King,  of  New  York,  voted  in  the  negative. 

The  debate  in  the  house  was  one  of  extraordinary  interest,  and 
evinced,  on  the  part  of  those  who  participated  in  it,  an  unusual  degree 
of  talent,  and  extensive  knowledge.  An  attendant  upon  the  discussion, 
in  giving  an  account  of  it,  said:  "  Mr.  Clay  has  been  the  Ajax  Telamon 
of  the  bill,  ably  supported  by  Mr.  Tod  and  many  others  on  diiFerent 
points  ;  but  Hectors  were  not  wanting  on  the  other  side  to  contest  the 
ground,  inch  by  inch."  Amopg  the  opponents  of  the  bill  were  Messrs. 
Webster,  Hamilton,  P.  P.  Barbour,  and  Forsyth. 

In  this  contest  for  protection,  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  may  perhaps 
be  justly  said  to  have  taken  the  lead.  The  voice  of  her  citizens 
expressed  in  public  meeting,  their  petitions  to  congress,  the  resolves  of 
her  state  legislature,  and  the  persevering  efforts  of  her  representatives 
in  congress,  contributed  largely  to  the  success  of  the  measure.  The 
chairmen  of  the  committees  on  manufactures  in  both  the  preceding  con- 
gress and  the  present,  were  representatives  from  that  state :  Mr.  Bald- 
win in  the  former,  and  Mr.  Tod  in  the  latter.  They  were  ably  sus- 
tained by  Messrs.  Buchanan,  Ingham,  Hemphill,  and  other  colleagues. 

The  following  statement  of  the  vote  in  the  house  is  given  that  the 
reader  may  compare  it  with  that  of  1 820  : 

Maine  :  Yeas,  1  ;  nays,  6.  Massachusetts  :  Yeas,  1 ;  nays,  1 1 .  New 
Hampshire  :  Yeas,  1 ;  nays,  5.  Rhode  Island  :  Yeas,  2.  Connecticut : 
Yeas,  5  ;  nays,  1.  Vermont :  Yeas,  5.  New  York  :  Yeas,  26  ;  nays,  8. 
New  Jersey :  Yeas,  6.  Pennsylvania :  Yeas,  24 ;  nays,  1 ;  absent,  1. 
Delaware  :  Yeas,  1.  Maryland  :  Yeas,  3  ;  nays,  6.  Virginia  :  Yeas,  1 ; 
nays,  21.  North  Carolina:  Nays,  13.  South  Carolina:  Nays,  9. 
Georgia:  Nays,  7.  Kentucky:  Yeas,  11.  Tennessee:  Yeas,  2 ;  nays, 
7.  Ohio :  Yeas,  14.  Indiana:  Yeas,  2 ;  absent,  1.  Illinois:  Yeas,  1. 
Louisiana :  Nays,  3.  Mississippi :  Nays,  1.  Alabama :  Nays,  3. 
Missouri:  Yeas,  1.  The  speaker,  Mr.  Clay,  being  in  the  chair,  did  not 
vote ;  and  Mr.  Ingham,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Mr.  Jennings,  of  Indiana, 
were  absent.  Their  votes,  had  they  been  given,  would  have  increased  the 
yeas  to  110.  There  was  a  vacancy  in  the  representation  from  Massachu- 
setts, which,  if  it  had  been  filled,  would  probably  have  been  given  in  the 
negative. 

In  Niles'  Register  of  the  24th  of  April,  the  states  are  classed  thus : 

Navigating  and  fishing  states  :  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  and  Massa- 
chusetts, 23  (including  one  for  the  vacancy  in  Mass.)  against,  and  3  for 
a  tariff  for  the  protection  of  domestic  industry. 

Manufacturing  states  :  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut,  7  for,  and  1 
aorainst. 


SPEECHES    OF    CLAY    AND    WEBSTER.  323 

Grain  growing  states :  Vermont,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Delaware,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Missouri,  24  for 
and  9  against. 

Tobacco  planting  and  grain  growing  state :  Maryland,  6  against 
and  1  for. 

Cotton  and  grain  growing  state :     Tennessee,  7  against,  and  2  for. 

Sugar  and  cotton  planting  state  :  Louisiana,  3  against. 

The  editor  adds  :  "  The  navigating  and  fishing  states  opposed  the  bill 
from  an  apprehension  that  it  would  injure  commerce ;  the  grain-growing 
states  supported  it  from  a  belief  that  its  passage  would  benefit  agricul- 
ture ;  and  the  planting  states  united  with  the  navigating  against  the  bill, 
for  the  reason  that  it  would  be  injurious  to  agriculture  !  On  this  ground 
the  two  last  classes  are  at  issue ;  but  if  we  deduct  the  members  from  the 
grain  growing  states,  who  we  may  suppose  were  influenced  by  other  con- 
siderations than  those  specially  favorable  to  agriculture,  it  will  appear, 
that  what  may  be  called  the  agricultural  vote  on  the  tarifi",  was  almost 
two  for,  to  one  against  it ;  that  is,  95  grain  growing  against  57  planting. 

"  The  unanimity  of  the  navigating  states  against  the  wishes  of  the 
middle  grain  growing  states,  will  surprise  those  who  recollect,  that  the 
former  were  indebted  to  the  latter  for  the  passage  of  every  law  that  pro- 
tected and  established  their  navigation  ;  such  as  the  discriminating  duties 
on  imports  and  tonnage ;  the  building  of  certain  frigates,  &c.,  '  for  the 
protection  of  commerce  against  the  Barbary  powers;'  and,  in  1796,*for 
the  establishment  of  a  regular  navy  *  for  the  protection  of  commerce  in 
general."  And  he  notices  what  he  calls  the  consistency  of  Virginia  and 
the  other  states.  "They  opposed  these  measures,  saying  :  '  Let  commerce 
protect  itself — indifferent  whether  their  tobacco  and  other  products 
were  carried  in  American  or  foreign  vessels.  They  now  say :  '  Let  manu- 
factures protect  .themselves;'  and  in  support  of  this  proposition,  use 
against  them  precisely  the  same  arguments  that  were  used  thirty  years 
ago  against  navigation." 

The  following  sketch  of  the  speech  of  Mr.  Clay  in  favor  of  the  tariff, 
and  of  that  of  Mr.  Webster  against  it,  presents  the  principal  arguments 
on  both  sides  of  the  question. 

Mr.  Clay  commenced  by  alluding  to  the  general  distress,  which,  he 
said,  was  indicated  by  the  diminished  exports  of  native  produce,  by  our 
reduced  foreign  navigation  and  diminished  commerce  ;  by  the  accumula- 
tion of  grain  wanting  a  market ;  by  the  alarming  diminution  of  the  cir- 
culating medium ;  by  the  numerous  bankruptcies  among  all  classes  of 
society ;  by  a  universal  complaint  of  the  want  of  employment  and  a  con- 
sequent reduction  of  the  wages  of  labor ;  by  the  reluctant  resort  to  the 
perilous  use  of  paper  money ;  and  above  all,  by  the  depressed  value  of 


324  THE    AMERICAN    .STATESMAN.- 

ail  kinds  of  property,  which  had,  on  an  average,  sunk  nearly  fifty  per 
cent,  within  a  few  years. 

The  cause  of  our  unhappy  condition,  he  said,  was  found  in  the  fact^ 
that,  during  nearly  the  whole  existence  of  the  government,  we  had 
shaped  our  industry,  our  navigation,  and  our  commerce,  in  reference  to 
an  extraordinary  war  in  Europe,  and  to  foreign  markets  which  no  longer 
existed.  The  revival  of  commerce  and  navigation,  and  the  extension  of 
agricultural  and  other  branches  of  industry  in  that  country,  had  destroyed 
the  demand  for  our  navigation,  our  commerce,  and  the  produce  of  our 
industry.  The  altered  state  of  Europe  he  regarded  a-s  the  cause  of  exist- 
ing evils.  The  greatest  want  of  civilized  society,  is  a  market  for  its 
surplus  products  of  labor.  Both  a  foreign  and  a  home  market  were 
desirable ;  but  the  latter  was  most  important.  The  object  of  the  bill 
was  to  create  the  latter,  and  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  genuine  Ameri- 
can policy.  Foreign  nations  could  not,  if  they  would,  take  our  surplus 
produce.  Our  population  doubled  in  about  twenty-five  years  ;  theirs  in 
about  one  hundred  years.  If,  therefore,  as  was  presumed,  the  increase 
of  production  and  consumption  was  in  the  ratio  of  the  increase  of  popu- 
lation, 0U7-  power  of  production  would  increase  in  a  ratio  four  times  aa 
great  as  their  capacity  for  consumption. 

But  if  they  could,  they  would  not  receive  our  agricultural  produce,  so 
far  as  it  comes  into  collision  with  their  own.  They  reject  all  our  great 
staples  which  consist  of  objects  of  human  subsistence,  and  receive  only 
those  raw  materials  essential  to  their  manufactures,  with  the  exception 
of  tobacco  and  rice,  which  they  can  not  produce. 

Both  the  inability  and  policy  of  foreign  nations,  then,  forbid  our  reli- 
ance upon  the  foreign  market  for  the  surplus  produce  of  American  labor. 
This  statement  was  confirmed  by  experience.  The  amount  of  all  our 
exports  of  domestic  produce,  during  the  year  ending  September  30,  1796, 
was  $40,764,097.  Estimating  the  increase  at  four  per  cent,  per  annum, 
(the  ratio  of  the  increase  of  our  population,)  the  amount  of  the  exports 
of  the  same  kinds  of  produce,  during  the  last  year,  ought  to  have  been 
$85,420,861  ;.  but  it  was  only  $47,155,408.  During  the  five  years  from 
1803  to  1807,  inclusive,  the  average  amount  of  native  produce  annually 
exported,  was  $43,202,751.  At  the  rate  of  increase  suggested,  the 
amount  ought  to  have  been^  during  the  last  year,  $77,766,751,  instead 
of  $47,155,408. 

Descending  into  particulars,  there  was  still  less  cause  for  satisfaction. 
The  export  of  tobacco  in  1 79 1 ,  the  year  of  the  largest  exportation  of  that 
article,  was  12,428  hogsheads.  The  export  which  ought  to  have  been 
last  year  266,332  hogsheads,  was  only  99,009.  In  1803,  we  exported 
1,311^853  barrels  of  flour;  last  year,  instead  of  2,361,333,  we  exported 


SPEECHES  OF  CLAY  AND  WEBSTER.  "325 

only  756,702 ;  and  of  this  amount  150,000  were  sent  to  South  America, 
But  this  demand  was  temporary,  growing  out  of  the  existing  war.  Of 
Indian  corn  the  export  last  year  was  749,034  bushels,  or  about  one-fifth 
of  what  it  should  have  been,  and  a  little  more  than  one-third  of  what  it 
was  in  1803.  The  exports  of  beef  and  pork  also,  instead  of  having 
increased,  were  much  less  than  they  were  twenty  years  ago.  Rice  had 
only  slightly  advanced.  Cotton  alone  showed  a  considerable  increase. 
But  whilst  the  quantity  was  augmented,  its  value  was  diminished.  The 
quantity  last  year  exceeded  that  of  the  preceding  year,  nearly  30,000,000 
pounds  ;  yet  the  value  was  less  by  more  than  $3,500,000.  In  1790,  the 
capacity  of  our  country  to  produce  this  article  was  scarcely  known, 
AYere  this  article  subtracted  from  the  mass  of  our  exports  during  the 
last  year,  the  value  of  the  residue  would  be  only  about  $27,000,000. 

The  distribution  of  the  articles  of  export  was  also  shown.  Of  the 
$47,155,408  to  which  they  amounted  last  year,  the  three  articles,  cotton, 
rice,  and  tobacco,  produced  chiefly  at  the  south,  alone  amounted  to 
$28,549,177.  The  portion  of  our  population  engaged  in  their  culture, 
l^robably  did  not  exceed  two  millions.  Thus,  less  than  one-fifth  of  the 
whole  population  of  the  United  States  produced  upwards  of  one-half, 
nearly  two-thirds  of  the  entire  value  of  the  exports  of  the  last  year. 

Was  the  foreign  market  likely  to  improve  ?  Europe  would  not  aban- 
don her  own  agriculture  to  foster  ours.  The  present  value  of  our  ex- 
ports might  be  maintained  in  future^  but  to  continue  in  the  existing  pur- 
suits of  agriculture  without  creating  a  new  market,  must  augment  the 
quantity  of  our  produce,  and  lessen  its  value  in  the  foreign  market.  Cot- 
ton, as  well  as  other  articles,  would  Tdc  thus  affected.  Our  agricultural 
is  our  greatest  interest ;  and  to  advance  it,  we  should  contemplate  it  in 
all  its  varieties  of  farming,  planting  and  grazing.  Can  nothing  be  done 
to  invigorate  it  ?  Exclusive  dependence  on  the  foreign  market  must 
lead  to  still  severer  distress.  Still  cherishing  the  foreign  market,  let  us 
create  a  home  market  to  give  farther  scope  to  the  consumption  of  the 
produce  of  American  industry.  Let  us  withdraw  the  support  we  give  to 
foreign  industry,  and  stimulate  our  own.  It  is  a  prominent  object  of 
wise  legislators  to  multiply  the  vocations  and  to  extend  the  business  of 
society,  by  the  protection  of  home  interests  against  foreign  legislation. 

A  home  market  is  necessary  to  secure  not  only  a  just  reward  for 
agricultural  labor,  but  a  supply  of  our  wants.  If  we  can  not  sell,  we 
can  not  buy.  That  portion  of  our  population,  (four-fifths,  as  we  have 
seen,)  which  produces  comparatively  nothing  that  foreigners  will  receive, 
has  nothing  wherewith  to  purchase  from  foreigners.  It  is  better,  there- 
fore, to  buy  the  domestic  fabric  at  a  higher  nominal  price,  than  to  buy 
the  foreign   for  which  we   have  nothing   to  give   in   exchange,     Th« 


326  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

superiority  of  the  home  market  consists,  (1.)  in  its  greater  steadiness  and 
certainty  ;  (2,)  in  the  creation  of  reciprocal  interest ;  (3.)  in  its  greater 
security ;  and  (4.)  in  an  ultimate  increase  of  consumption,  and  conse- 
quently of  comfort,  from  increased  quantity  and  reduced  prices. 

To  illustrate  the  benefits  of  this  domestic  policy,  suppose  that 
500,000  persons  are  now  employed  abroad  in  fabricating,  for  our  con- 
sumption, those  articles  with  which,  by  the  operation  of  this  bill,  it  is 
intended  to  supply  ourselves.  These  persons  are,  in  effect,  subsisted  by 
us;  but  the  means  of  their  subsistence  are  drawn  from  foreign  agricul- 
ture. If  they  were  transported  to  this  country,  the  demand  in  the  article 
of  flour  alone  required  for  their  subsistence,  would  be  about  900,000 
barrels,  which  exceeds  the  entire  quantity  exported  the  last  year.  But 
if  we  should  thus  employ  this  number  of  our  own  citizens,  instead  of 
foreigners,  the  beneficial  efi"ects  upon  the  farming  interest  would  be 
nearly  doubled.  By  directing  so  many  hands  to  other  pursuits,  the  pro- 
ductions of  agricultural  labor  would  be  greatly  diminished.  This 
diminution  of  the  quantity  alone  would  increase  their  proportional 
value  ;  but  this  value  would  be  still  farther  enhanced  by  the  home  market 
created.  ^ 

The  great  desideratum  in  political  economy  is,  so  to  apply  the  aggre- 
gate industry  of  a  nation  as  to  produce  the  greatest  amount  of  wealth. 
Labor  is  the  source   of  wealth ;  but  it  is  not  natural  labor  only.     The 
fundamental  error  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  (P.  P.  Ba,rbour,)  in 
deducing,  from  the  sparseness  of  our  population,  our  unfitness  for  the 
introduction  of  the  arts,  consists  in  not  duly  appreciating  the  power  of 
machinery.     Such  are  the  improvements  in  machinery,  that  the  propor- 
tion of  the  value  given  to  many  fabrics  by  natural  labor  is  so  inconsider- 
able as  to  be  scarcely  worth  calculating.     Hence,  manual  labor  and  the 
price  of  wages  are  of  less  account  than  they  were  in  former  times.     For 
example  :  Asia,  formerly,  by  the  density  of  her  population  and  the  low- 
ness  of  wages,  laid  Europe  under  tribute  for  many  of  her  fabrics.     Now 
Europe,  Great  Britain  in  particular,  reacts  upon  Asia,  and  throws  back 
upon  her  countless  millions  of  people  the  products  of  artificial  labor,  in- 
finitely cheaper  than  they  can  be  manufactured  by  the  natural  exertions 
of  that  portion  of   the  globe.     It   is  to    the   immense  power  of   her 
machinery  that  Britain  is  indebted  for  her  enormous  wealth.     According 
to  reliable  estimates,  her  artificial  or  machine  labor  is  equal  to  that  of 
200,000,000  able  bodied  laborers ;  which  gives  to  her  a  power  to  create 
wealth  ten  times  greater  than  that  of  the  United  States.     Facts  will 
show  that  these  views  are  not  imaginary. 

The   revenue  of   the  United  Kingdom  reached,  in    1822,   the  vast 
amount  of  £55,000,000  sterling,  or  nearly  $245,000,000  ;  eleven  times 


SPEECHES  OF  CLAY  AND  WEBSTER.  327 

that  of  tlio  United  States  during  the  same  year.  The  prosperous  con- 
dition of  her  commerce  equally  denotes  her  immense  riches.  The 
average  of  three  years'  exports  ending  in  1789,  was  upwards  of 
£13,000,000  sterling,  and  of  her  imports,  £17,000,000.  The  average  of 
the  exports  for  three  years  ending  in  1822,  was  £40,000,000,  and  of  im- 
ports £36,000,000;  showing  a  balance  of  trade  in  her  favor  of 
£4,000,000,  or  about  $20,000,000.  Thus,  from  the  time  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  our  constitution,  have  the  exports  of  that  kingdom  been 
tripled,  and  mainly  by  the  power  of  machinery.  The  average  of  her 
tonnage  during  the  most  flourishing  period  of  the  war,  was  2,400,003 
tons.  Its  average  during  the  three  years,  1819,  1820,  and  1821,  w  s 
2,600,000  tons. 

A  glance  at  some  of  the  articles  of  her  manufactures,  said  Mr.  CI  y, 
would  aid  us  in  comprehending  the  nature  of  the  sources  of  her  riches. 
The  amount  of  cotton  fabrics  exported  during  the  most  prosperous  year 
of  the  war,  was  about  £18,000,000  sterling.  In  1820,  it  was 
£16,600  000  ;  in  1821,  £20,500,000  ;  in  1822,  £21,639,000  ;  orupwards 
of  $96,000,000.  The  total  amount  of  her  imports  of  cotton  wool  from 
all  foreign  parts,  was  £5,000,000  sterling.  After  supplying  the  consump- 
tion of  fabrics  within  the  country,  she  gives,  by  means  of  her  industry, 
to  this  cotton  wool  a  new  value,  which  enables  her  to  sell  to  foreign 
nations  to  the  amount  of  £21,639,000  ;  making  a  clear  profit  of  about 
£16,500,000,  or  more  than  $73,000,000  !  In  1821,  the  value  of  her  ex- 
ports of  woolen  manufactures  was  £4,300,000;  in  1822,  £5,500,000. 

Of  the  wealth  annually  produced  in  Great  Britain,  the  agricultural 
portion  is  said,  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  to  be  greater  than  that 
created  by  any  other  branch  of  her  industry.  But  that  flows  mainly 
from  a  policy  similar  to  that  proposed  by  this  bill.  One-third  only  of 
her  population  is  engaged  in  agriculture;  the  other  two-thirds  furnishing 
a  market  for  the  produce  of  that  third.  Withdraw  this  market,  and 
what  becomes  of  her  agriculture  ? 

The  protecting  policy  of  Great  Britain  is  adapted  alike  to  a  state  of 
war  and  a  state  of  peace.  Self-poised,  resting  upon  her  own  internal  re- 
sources, possessing  a  home  market  carefully  cherished  and  guarded,  she 
is  prepared  for  any  emergency.  We  have  seen  her  coming  out  of  a  war 
of  incalculable  exertion  and  long  duration,  with  her  power  unbroken,  her 
means  undiminished.  Almost  every  revolving  year  of  peace  has  brought 
with  it  an  increase  of  her  manufactures,  of  her  commerce,  and,  conse- 
quently, of  her  navigation.  Constructing  her  prosperity  upon  the  solid 
foundation  of  her  own  protecting  policy,  it  is  unafi'ected  by  the  vicis- 
situdes of  other  states. 

What  is  our  condition  ?     Depending  upon  the  state  of  foreign  powers 


328  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

—confiding  in  a  foreign,  to  the  neglect  of  a  domestic  policy — our  iii 
terests  are  affected  by  all  their  movements.  Their  wars,  their  mis- 
fortunes, are  the  source  of  our  prosperity.  Our  system  is  anomalous; 
unfitted  either  to  general  tranquility,  or  to  a  state  of  war  or  peace  on  our 
own  part.  It  can  succeed  only  in  the  rare  occurrence  of  a  general  war 
throughout  Europe. 

Mr.  Clay  proceeded  to  answer  the  numerous  objections  that  had  been 
made  against  the  bill. 

1.  It  was  designed  to  tax  one  part  of  the  community  for  the  benefit 
of  another.  To  this  it  was  replied,  that  no  man  paid  the  duty  assessed 
on  the  foreign  article  by  compulsion.  Consumption  had  four  objects  of 
choice:  (1.)  It  might  abstain  from  the  use  of  the  foreign  article,  and 
thus  avoid  the  tax ;  or,  (2.)  employ  the  rival  American  fabric ;  or,  (3.) 
engage  in  the  business  of  manufacturing,  which  the  bill  is  designed  to 
foster  ;  or,  (4.)  supply  itself  from  the  household  manufactures. 

It  had  been  said  that  the  south,  owing  to  the  character  of  a  certain 
portion  of  its  population,  could  not  engage  in  manufacturing.  He  did 
not  agree  in  that  opinion  to  the  extent  asserted.  But  if  true,  ought  the 
interests  of  the  greater  and  freer  part  to  be  made  to  bend  to  the  condi- 
tion of  the  servile  part  of  our  population  ?  And  should  we  persist  in 
the  foreign  policy,  and  make  all  other  parts  tributary  to  the  planting 
parts  ?  But  although  the  south  should  not  embark  in  manufacturing, 
its  interest  would  be  promoted  by  a  new  source  of  supply  for  its  con- 
sumption, as  well  as  an  additional  market  for  its  raw  material.  Now, 
foreign  countries — Great  Britain  principally — have  the  monopoly  in 
supplying  southern  consumption.  If  this  bill  should  pass,  an  American 
competitor  would  be  raised  up,  and  the  south  would  be  cheaper  and 
better  supplied. 

2.  The  amount  of  our  exports,  it  is  said,  will  be  diminished ;  because, 
if  we  do  not  buy  of  Europe,  she  will  not  buy  of  us.  He  had  already 
said,  that,  except  tobacco  and  rice,  we  send  to  Europe  nothing  but  raw 
materials.  The  effect  of  the  bill  will  be  to  diminish  the  imports  of  those 
articles  only  which  it  will  enable  us  to  manufacture  for  ourselves  ;  leav- 
ing Europe  free  to  supply  us  with  any  other  produce  of  their  industry. 
The  export  of  cotton  wool  to  Great  Britain  will  probably  be  some- 
what diminished.  He  had  stated  that  Britain  buys  cotton  wool  to  the 
amount  of  £5,000,000  sterling,  and  sells  abroad  of  the  article  in  a  manu- 
factured state,  £21,500,000  ;  of  which  we  receive  a  little  upwards  of 
£1,500,000.  The  residue  of  £20,000,000  she  will  continue  to  sell  to 
other  foreign  powers,  the  raw  material  for  which  she  must  obtain  from 
us,  because  we  can  supply  her  cheaper  and  better  than  any  other  coun- 
try.    While,  therefore,  the  diminution  of  the  export  of  the  raw  cotton 


SPEECHES  OF  CLAY  AND  WEBSTER.  329 

would  be  only  as  one  and  a  half  to  twenty,  its  value  would  be  greatly 
multiplied  by  a  new  application  of  our  industry,  and  thus  increase  the 
amount  of  our  exports.  Our  cotton  manufactures,  to  a  considerable 
amount,  already  find  a  sale  in  foreign  markets. 

3.  It  was  objected  that  the  tariff  would  diminish  our  navigation. 
This,  though  a  great  interest,  and  deserving  encouragement,  was  not  a 
paramount  interest,  and  ought  to  accommodate  itself  to  the  state  of 
agriculture  and  manufactures.  There  would  be  no  sensible  diminution 
of  our  present  exports  to  Europe  ;  and 'as  the  new  direction  given  to  a 
portion  of  our  industry  would  produce  new  objects  of  exportation,  our 
foreign  tonnage  would  probably  be  even  increased.  But  although  it. 
should  experience  a  slight  reduction,  the  increase  of  our  coasting  ton- 
nage, resulting  from  the  greater  activity  of  domestic  exchanges,  would 
more  than  compensate  the  injury. 

4.  It  was  contended  that  this  measure  would  diminish  our  foreign 
commerce.  The  new  productions,  or  the  value  given  to  old  objects  of 
industry,  said  Mr.  C,  would  give  to  commerce  a  fresh  spring,  a  new  ali- 
ment. The  foreign  commerce  had  already  been  extended  as  far  as  it 
could  be ;  the  balance  of  trade  was,  and  had  for  some  time  been  against 
us ;  and  some  measure  was  necessary  to  render  our  foreign  exchanges 
more  favorable.  Mr.  Clay  was  surprised  to  hear  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts,  (Mr.  Webster,)  reject,  as  an  exploded  fallacy,  the  idea 
of  a  balance  of  trade.  He  had  not  time  now  to  discuss  that  topic,  but 
would  observe,  that  all  nations  acted  upon  the  supposition  of  the  reality 
of  its  existence,  and  sought  to  avoid  a  trade  the  balance  of  which  was 
against  them,  and  to  foster  that  which  presented  a  favorable  balance. 
An  unfavorable  balance  with  one  nation  might  be  made  up  by  a  favor- 
able balance  with  other  nations ;  but  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  that 
unfavorable  balance  was  strong  presumptive  evidence  against  the  trade. 
Commerce,  it  had  been  said,  would  regulate  itself.  But  was  it  not  the 
duty  of  wise  governments  to  watch  its  course,  and  by  prudent  legisla- 
tion to  stimulate  the  industry  of  their  own  people,  and  to  check  the 
policy  of  foreign  powers  ? 

5.  Another  objection  to  the  tariff  was,  that  it  would  diminish  the 
public  revenue,  and  compel  us  to  resort  to  internal  taxation  to  pay  the 
public  debt.  This  objection  presupposed  a  reduction  of  the  importation 
of  the  articles  subjected  to  increased  duties.  It  was  believed  that  the 
augmentation  of  the  duties  would  compensate  for  the  diminution  of  the 
quantities  imported.  Some  articles  would  continue  to  be  imported  as 
largely  as  ever. 

6.  Again,  it  was  objected,  that  capital  and  labor  would  be  forced  into 
new  and  reluctant  employments,  for  which  we  were  not  prepared,  in  con- 


330  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

sequence  of  tlie  high  price  of  labor.  The  existing  occupations  were 
already  overflowing  with  competitors;  and  the  very  object  of  the  bill 
was  to  open  a  new  field  of  business,  into  which  all  that  should  choose 
might  enter.  The  alleged  fact  of  the  high  price  of  wages  was  not  admit- 
ted. No  class  of  society  were  suffering  more  than  the  laboring  class. 
This  was  a  necessary  effect  of  the  depression  of  agriculture,  the  principal 
business  of  the  community.  Able-bodied  men  could  be  employed  for 
five  to  eight  dollars  a  month.  He  agreed  with  the  gentleman  from  Vir- 
ginia, that  high  wages  are  a  proof  of  national  prosperity ;  they  differed 
only  in  the  means  of  attaining  the  end.  Natural  labor  is  so  inconsider- 
able an  element  in  the  business  of  manufacture,  as'  to  render  the  fact  of 
high  wages  of  small  account.  It  had  been  foretold  that  our  restrictive 
commercidl  policy  would  disappoint  our  expectations.  But  it  had  been 
successful;  as  was  evident  from  the  share  which  our  navigation  enjoy- 
ed in  the  trade  with  France  and  the  British  West  India  islands. 

7.  But  it  had  been  said,  that,  where  circumstances  are  favorable  to 
manufactures,  they  will  arise  without  protection.  If  all  nations  would 
modify  their  policy  on  this  axiom,  perhaps  it  would  be  better  for  the 
common  good  of  the  whole.  But  even  then,  in  consequence  of  natural 
advantages  and  a  greater  advance  in  civilization  and  the  arts,  some 
nations  would  enjoy  a  higher  degree  of  prosperity  than  others.  If 
asked  why  unprotected  industry  should  not  succeed  in  a  struggle  with 
protected  industry,  it  was  suJB&cient  to  answer,  that  the  fact  had  ever 
been  so — that  uniform  experience  evinced  that  it  could  not  succeed 
in  such  an  unequal  contest.  If,  however,  he  were  to  attempt  to  par- 
ticularize causes,  he  would  mention,  (1.)  the  obduracy  of  fixed  habits — 
the  reluctance  of  men  to  change  their  course  of  business;  (2.)  the  un- 
certainty and  fluctuation  of  the  home  market,  when  free  to  an  influx  of 
fabrics  from  all  nations ;  and  (3.)  the  superior  advance  of  skill  and 
amount  of  capital  which  some  nations  have  obtained  by  the  protection 
of  their  own  industry. 

8.  But,  it  was  said,  admitting  the  policy  of  protection  to  be  expedient, 
the  measure  of  protection  had  already  been  sufficiently  extended.  Most  of 
the  existingduties  had  been  laid  with  a  view  to  revenue,  rather  than  to  the 
encouragement  of  domestic  industry.  Although  the  incidental  effect  of 
them  was  to  promote  our  manufactures,  they  fell  short  of  competent 
protection,  and  needed  a  moderate  addition. 

9.  Again,  it  was  asserted,  that  the  restricting  policy  was  condemned 
by  the  wisdom  of  Europe,  and  by  her  most  enlightened  statesmen.  Mr. 
Clay  denied  this  assertion.  The  few  instances  of  partial  relaxation  to 
which  reference  had  been  made,  and  to  which  Great  Britain  had  been 
impelled  by  interest  or  necessity,  did  not  prove  her  abandonment  of  the 


SPEECHES    OF    CLAY    AND    WEBSTER.  331 

system.  But  supposiDg  it  to  be  true,  would  that  prove  it  unwise  for  us 
to  adopt  the  protecting  system?  In  England  its  purpose  had  been 
accomplished.  It  was  upon  this  ground  that  some  of  her  writers  recom- 
mended its  abandonment.  Her  manufactures  having  become  established, 
freedom  of  trade  with  other  nations  whose  arts  were  yet  in  their  infancy, 
would,  it  was  supposed,  only  give  wider  scope  to  British  industry  and 
enterprise.  It  would  extend  the  consumption  of  British  produce  to 
other  countries.  She  had  not,  however,  adopted  the  theories  of  philo- 
sophical writers,  which,  wherever  adopted,  brought  with  them  impover- 
ishment and  ruin.  Spain  afforded  a  striking  proof  of  the  sad  effects 
upon  a  nation,  of  its  neglecting  the  care  of  its  own  internal  industry. 
Her  prosperity  was  greatest  when  the  arts,  brought  there  by  the  Moors, 
flourished  most  in  that  kingdom.  Then  she  received  from  England  her 
wool,  and  returned  it  in  a  manufactured  state ;  and  then  Englaiid  was 
least  prosperous. 

10.  It  was  objected,  also,  that  the  manufacturing  system  tended  to 
the  accumulation  of  large  capitals  in  a  few  hands,  and  the  consequent 
corruption  of  public  morals.  This  objection  would  equally  apply  to 
every  lucrative  business.  Immense  fortunes  had  been  acquired  by  com- 
merce at  the  north,  and  by  planting  at  the  south.  The  laws  of  distribu- 
tion in  this  country,  and  the  absence  of  the  English  rule  of  primogeni- 
ture, would  check  the  accumulation  of  large  fortunes ;  and  the  extent 
and  fertility  of  our  lands  were  a  sufficient  safeguard  against  excess  in 
manufactures,  and  against  the  oppression,  by  capitalists,  of  the  laboring 
classes  of  the  community.  The  best  security  against  the  demoralization 
of  society  was  the  constant  and  profitable  employment  of  its  members. 

11.  And  still  another  objection  was,  that  the  bill  was  unconstitu- 
tional. Whether  an  attempt  was  made  to  provide  for  internal  improve- 
ments ;  or  to  protect  American  industry  against  foreign  rivalry,  the 
constitution  stood  in  our  way.  This  constitution  must  be  a  singular 
instrument  !  It  seemed  to  have  been  made  for  any  other  people  than 
our  own.  Revenue  was  doubtless  the  principal  object  of  the  power  to 
lay  duties  and  imposts.  In  executing  this  power,  however,  the  duties 
might  be  so  laid  as  to  secure  domestic  interests.  But  the  power  "  to 
regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations"  is  unlimited.  It  implies  the 
power  to  admit  or  exclude  any  article  of  trade,  or  to  prescribe  the  terms 
of  its  admission.  Under  this  power  laws  had  been  passed  entirely  pro- 
hibiting all  intercourse  with  foreign  nations.  And  these  laws — embar- 
goes— had  received  the  approbation  of  men  who  now  denied  to  congress 
the  right  to  exercise  this  power  for  the  purpose  of  protection. 

Mr.  Webster  considered  the  picture  of  distress  drawn  by  Mr.  Clay, 
as  unwarranted  by  the  real  condition  of  the  country.     He  admitted  that 


332  THE    AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

there  was  a  considerable  depression  of  prices,  and  in  some  degree  a  stag- 
nation of  business ;  but  in  the  eastern  states,  where  he  was  most  ac- 
quainted, the  means  of  living  were  accessible  and  abundant,  and  labor 
was  well  rewarded.  Profits,  indeed,  were  low;  in  some  pursuits  of  life, 
very  low :  but  he  had  not  seen  any  proofs  of  extraordinary  distress. 

In  judging  of  this  question,  even  from  the  proofs  to  which  reference 
had  been  made,  they  would  probably  come  to  a  conclusion  different  from 
that  which  had  been  drawn.  Our  exports,  for  example,  although  less 
than  in  some  years,  were  not,  last  year,  much  below  an  average  formed 
from  the  exports  of  a  series  of  years.  The  speaker  had  taken  the 
extraordinary  exports  of  the  year  1803,  and  made  them  the  basis  of 
calculating  the  amount  which  they  ought  to  have  reached,  in  order  to 
exhibit  an  increase  corresponding  to  the  increase  of  our  population.  Of 
the  article  of  flour,  there  was  an  export  that  year  of  1,300,000  barrels; 
but  the  next  year  it  fell  to  800,000,  and  the  next  to  700,000  barrels. 
But  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  increase  of  agricultural  exports 
would  keep  pace  with  the  increase  of  population.  It  was  against  all 
experience. 

As  means  of  judging  of  the  general  condition  of  the  people,  Mr. 
Webster  mentioned  the  quantity  of  means  of  subsistence  consumed,  or 
the  quantity  of  the  comforts  of  life  enjoyed;  the  progress  of  internal 
improvements ;  and  the  increasing  amount  annually  paid  for  purposes  of 
education.  In  some  parts  of  the  country,  he  admitted,  there  was  a  great 
degree  of  pecuniary  embarrassment,  arising  from  the  difficulty  of  paying 
debts  contracted  when  prices  were  high.  The  depression  of  prices  he 
ascribed  to  the  restoration  of  a  state  of  peace.  The  wars  in  Europe 
and  our  own  country,  had  caused  a  great  demand  for  the  commodities  of 
trade,  the  prices  of  which  had  been  raised  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest 
extreme.  The  large  issues  of  bank  paper  had  contributed  to  this  result. 
A  depreciated  currency  existed  in  a  great  part  of  the  country ;  depre- 
ciated to  such  an  extent  as  to  raise  the  exchange  between  the  center  and 
the  north  as  high  as  20  per  cent.  The  bank  of  the  United  States  had 
been  instituted  to  correct  this  evil ;  but  for  certain  causes,  it  did  not,  for 
some  years,  bring  back  the  currency  to  a  sound  state.  This  depreciation 
was  so  much  added  to  the  nominal  prices  of  commodities ;  and  these 
high  prices  seemed  to  those  who  looked  only  at  the  appearance,  to  indi- 
Gate  prosperity.  At  length  prices  fell,  and  from  the  effects  of  this  fall 
the  country  had  not  yet  fully  recovered. 

In  seeking  a  remedy  for  existing  evils,  Mr.  Webster  said,  we  were 
bound  to  see  that  there  was  a  fitness  in  the  measures  proposed ;  and 
before  we  adopted  a  system  that  professed  to  make  great  alterations,  we 
should  look  carefully  to  each  leading  interest  of  the  community,  and  see 


SPEECHES  OF  CLAY  AND  WEBSTER,  333 

how  it  miglit  be  affected  by  our  proposed  legislation.  Our  commerce 
was  not  enjoying  that  rich  harvest  which  fell  to  its  fortune  during  the 
European  wars.  Still,  it  seemed  capable  of  recovering  itself  in  some 
measure  from  its  depression.  The  shipping  interest  had  suffered  still 
more  severely  ;  and  it  was  astonishing  that  the  navigation  of  the  United 
States  should  sustain  itself.  Without  government  protection,  it  chal- 
lenged competition  with  the  whole  world  ;  and,  in  spite  of  all  obstacles, 
it  had  yet  been  able  to  maintain  800,000  tons  in  the  employment  of 
foreign  trade.  This  was  done,  not  by  protection  and  bounties,  but  by 
unwearied  exertion,  by  extreme  economy,  by  that  resolute  spirit  which 
relies  on  itself  for  protection.  The  navigation  of  the  country  was  essen- 
tial to  its  honor  and  its  defense.  Yet,  in  this  hour  of  its  depression,  it 
was  proposed  to  lay  upon  it  new  and  heavy  burthens. 

In  discussing  the  proposed  duty  on  tallow  for  the  benefit  of  the  oil 
merchants  and  whalemen,  strong  statements  had  been  made  of  the 
importance  of  that  portion  of  our  shipping  employed  in  the  whale  fishery. 
But  the  same  bill  proposed  a  severe  tax  upon  that  interest  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  iron  manufacturer  and  the  hemp  grower.  So  that  the  tallow 
chandlers  and  soap  boilers  were  to  be  sacrificed  to  the  oil  merchants,  that 
these  again  may  contribute  to  the  manufacturers  of  iron  and  the  growers 
of  hemp. 

In  the  next  place,  what  was  the  condition  of  our  home  manufactures  ? 
Did  they  need  farther  protection  ?  He  was  in  favor  of  protecting 
domestic  industry ;  all  domestic  industry  was  not  confined  to  manufac- 
tures. Agriculture,  commerce,  and  navigation,  were  all  branches  of  the 
same  domestic  industry ;  and  the  question  was,  whether  the  proposed  new 
encouragement  to  particular  manufactures  was  necessary,  and  whether  it 
could  be  given  without  injustice  to  other  branches  of  industry.  One 
great  object  proposed  was  the  increase  of  the  home  market  for  the  con- 
sumption of  agricultural  products ;  but  what  provisions  of  the  bill  were 
expected  to  produce  this,  was  not  stated.  Some  increase  of  home  market 
might  follow  from  the  adoption  of  the  bill ;  but  all  its  provisions  had 
not  equal  tendency  to  produce  this  effect.  Its  provisions  should  there- 
fore be  singly  and  severally  examined.  Some  of  them  were  probably 
acceptable  to  the  general  sense  of  the  house.  These  might  be  passed 
into  a  law,  and  others  left  to  be  decided  upon  their  own  merits. 

Mr.  Webster  then  adverted  to  some  other  general  topics.  Much  had 
been  heard  of  the  policy  of  England;  and  her  example  had  been  urged, 
as  proving,  not  only  the  expediency  of  encouragement  and  protection, 
but  also  of  exclusion  and  prohibition.  He  had  the  other  day  remarked, 
that  more  liberal  notions  were  becoming  prevalent  on  this  subject;  that 
the  policy  of  restraints  and  prohibitions  was  getting  out  of  repute,  as 


334  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  true  nature  of  commerce  became  better  understood ;  and  that  the 
most  distinguished  public  men  were  most  decided  in  their  reprobation 
of  the  restrictive  principle.^  But  it  had  again  been  declared,  that  the 
English  government  still  adhered  to  its  old  doctrines  ;  and  that,  although 
journalists,  theorists,  and  scientific  writers  advance  other  doctrines,  the 
practical  men,  the  legislatures,  the  government,  are  too  wise  to  follow 
them.  It  had  even  been  hinted,  that  the  promulgation  of  liberal  opinions 
was  intended  only  to  delude  other  nations  into  the  folly  of  liberal  ideas, 
while  England  retained  to  herself  the  benefits  of  the  old  system. 

He  had  never  said  that  prohibitory  laws  did  not  exist  in  England ; 
but  the  question  was,  did  she  owe  her  prosperity  to  these  laws  ?  He 
ventured  to  say,  that  such  was  not  the  opinion  of  public  men  now  in 
England;  and  the  continuance  of  the  laws,  even  without  alteration, 
would  not  be  evidence  that  their  opinion  was  not  as  he  had  represented 
it.  The  laws  having  existed  long,  and  great  interests  having  been  built 
up  on  the  faith  of  them,  they  could  not  now  be  repealed  without  great 
inconvenience.  Because  a  thing  had  been  wrongly  done,  it  did  not  fol- 
low that  it  could  now  be  undone ;  and  for  this  reason  prohibition  and 
monopoly  were  sufi'ered  to  remain  in  the  English  S3^stem.  Mr.  W.  here 
read  extracts  from  speeches  of  several  members  of  parliament  in  favor 
of  the  general  principle  of  unrestricted  trade.  One  of  the  speakers 
observed,  that  he  believed  England  had  risen  to  her  present  greatness, 
"not  in  consequence  of  her  present  system,  but  in  spite  of  it." 
Another  remarked,  that  "  the  name  of  strict  prohibition  might,  in  com- 
merce, be  got  rid  of  altogether;  but  he  did  not  see  the  same  objection 
to  protecting  duties,  which,  while  they  admitted  the  introduction  of  com- 
modities from  abroad,  similar  to  those  which  we  ourselves  manufactured, 
placed  them  so  much  on  a  level  as  to  allow  a  competition  between  them." 

Protection,  when  carried  to  the  point  recommended,  seemed  to  him 
(Mr.  W.)  destructive  of  all  intercourse  between  nations.  We  were 
urged  to  adopt  the  system  upon  general  principles.  He  did  not  admit  the 
general  principle;  freedom  of  trade  was  the  general  principle,  and 
restriction  the  exception.  And  it  was  for  every  state,  taking  into 
view  its  own  condition,  to  judge  of  the  propriety,  in  any  case,  of  making 
an  exception,'  constantly  preferring,  as  all  wise  governments  would,  not 
to  depart,  without  urgent  reasons,  from  the  general  rule. 

He  next  spoke  of  the  warehouse  system,  usually  called  in  this  coun- 
try, the  system  of  drawback.  We  seemed  averse  to  the  extension  of 
this  principle.  England,  on  the  contrary,  appeared  to  have  carried  it 
to  the  extreme  of  liberality.  The  present  opinions  and  practice  of  her 
government,  however,  had  been  attained  by  slow  degrees.  The  transit 
system  was  commenced  about  the  year  1803  ;  but  the  first  law  was  par- 


SPEECHES    OF    CLAY    AND    WEBSTER.  335 

tial  and  limited.  It  admitted  the  importation  of  raw  material^  for 
exportation ;  but  it  excluded  almost  every  sort  of  manufactured  goods. 
This  was  done  for  the  same  reason  that  we  proposed  to  prevent  the 
transit  of  Canadian  wheat  through  the  United  States — the  fear  of  aiding 
the  competition  of  the  foreign  article  with  our  own,  in  foreign  markets. 
But  reflection  or  experience  had  induced  the  British  government  to  con- 
sider all  such^means  of  influencing  foreign  markets  as  nugatory;  since 
nations  will  supply  themselves  from  the  ^est  sources  :  and  the  true 
policy  of  all  producers,  whether  of  raw  materials  or  of  manufactured 
articles,  was,  not  vainly  to  endeavor  to  keep  other  venders  out  of  mar- 
ket, but  to  conquer  them  in  it,  by  the  quality  and  the  cheapness  of  their 
goods.  The  present  policy  of  England,  he  said,  was  to  invite  the 
importation  of  commodities,  to  be  deposited  in  English  warehouses,  thence 
to  be  exported  in  assorted  cargoes,  and  thus  enabling  her  to  carry  on  a 
general  export  trade  to  all  quarters  of  the  globe.  Articles  of  all  kinds, 
except  tea,  may  be  brought  from  any  part  of  the  world,  in  foreign  as 
well  as  British  ships,  warehoused,  and  again  exported  at  pleasure,  with- 
out any  duty  or  government  charge  whatever. 

Mr.  W.  also  noticed  the  recent  proposition  in  parliament  to  abolish 
the  tax  on  imported  wool.  It  was  observable,  he  said,  that  those  who 
supported  this  proposition,  gave  the  same  reasons  as  had  been  ofi'ered  here, 
within  the  last  week,  against  the  duty  which  we  proposed  on  the  same 
article.  They  said  their  manufacturers  required  a  cheap  and  coarse 
wool  for  the  supply  of  the  Mediterranean  and  Levant  trade ;  and  without 
a  more  free  admission  of  the  wool  of  the  continent,  that  trade  would  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  Germans  and  Italians,  who  would  carry  it  on 
through  Leghorn  and  Trieste.  While  there  was  this  duty  on  foreign 
wool  to  protect  the  wool  growers  of  England,  there  was,  on  the  other 
hand,  a  prohibition  on  the  exportation  of  the  native  article,  in  aid  of  the 
manufacturers.  The  opinion  seemed  to  be  gaining  strength,  that  the 
true  policy  was  to  abolish  both.  Whether,  therefore,  the  present  policy 
of  England  were  right  or  wrong,  wise  or  unwise,  it  could  not,  he  thought, 
be  quoted  as  authority  for  carrying  farther  the  restrictive  system,  in 
regard  either  to  manufactures  or  trade. 

On  the  subject  of  the  "  balance  of  trade,"  Mr.  W.  dissented  from  the 
popular  notion,  that  because  the  imports  of  a  nation  exceeded  its  exports ; 
in  other  words,  if  it  buys  more  than  it  sells,  the  balance  of  trade  is 
unfavorable.  He  maintained,  that  the  excess  of  imports  over  exports 
usually  showed  the  gains,  not  the  losses  of  trade,  because  the  value  of 
the  goods  imported  was  augmented  by  the  labor  of  transportation.  The 
diiference  between  the  value  of  the  imports  and  exports  consisted  of  the 
profits  of  commerce,  and  the  earnings  of  navigation.     It  was  clear,  that, 


336  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

if  the  value  of  the  commodities  imported  in  a  given  case,  did  not  exceed 
the  value  of  the  outward  cargo  with  which  they  were  purchased,  the 
voyage  was  unprofitable.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  balance  of 
trade,  although  one  individual  or  all  individuals  gain,  the  nation  loses ; 
while  all  its  citizens  grow  rich,  the  country  grows  poor. 

These  notions  had  their  origin  in  mistaken  ideas  of  the  true  nature 
of  commerce.  Commerce  was  not  a  gambling  between  nations  for  a 
stake,  to  be  won  by  some  and  lost  by  others.  It  might  be  carried  on  to 
the  mutual  advantage  of  all  parties.  Individuals  made  interchanges  to 
the  benefit  of  both.  So  nations  producing  different  commodities,  might 
exchange  with  each  other,  and  both  profit  by  the  exchange.  It  did  not 
follow,  therefore,  that  our  receiving  from  any  country  more  of  her  pro- 
ducts than  she  received  of  ours,  was  to  us  a  losing  trade. 

Connected  with  this  topic  was  another  which  had  been  brought  into 
the  debate;  an  evil  much  complained  of — the  exportation  of  specie. 
G-entlemen  had  imputed  the  loss  of  market  at  home  to  a  want  of  money, 
and  this  want  of  money  to  the  exportation  of  the  precious  metals.  The 
India  and  China  trade  had  been  denounced,  because  the  products  of 
those  countries  were  purchased  with  gold  and  silver.  This  opinion  was 
without  just  foundation.  These  articles  were  of  use,  and  articles  of 
merchandise,  with  this  additional  circumstance,  that  they  were  made,  by 
the  general  consent  of  nations,  the  standard  by  which  the  value  of  all 
other  merchandise  was  to  be  estimated.  There  might  be  too  much  or 
too  little  of  them  in  a  country  at  a  particular  time,  as  there  might  be 
of  any  other  articles.  When  the  market  was  overstocked  with  them, 
their  exportation  became  as  proper  and  as  useful  as  that  of  other  com- 
modities, under  similar  circumstances.  There  was  no  more  cause  for 
repining  when  the  dollars  received  from  South  America  were  sent  to 
other  countries  than  when  coffee  and  sugar  took  that  direction.  "We 
often  deceived  ourselves  by  attributing  to  a  scarcity  of  money  that 
which  is  the  result  of  other  causes. 

A  member  from  Pennsylvania  had  represented  the  country  full  of 
every  thing  but  money.  The  agricultural  products,  so  abundant  in  that 
state,  would  not  sell  for  money.  But  they  would  sell  for  money  as 
quick  as  for  any  other  article  that  happened  to  be  in  demand.  They 
would  sell  for  money  as  easily  as  for  coffee  or  for  tea,  at  the  prices  which 
properly  belong  to  those  articles.  The  mistake  was  in  imputing  to  the 
want  of  money  what  arises  from  want  of  demand.  Men  do  not  buy 
wheat  because  they  have  money,  but  because  they  want  wheat.  To 
decide  whether  money  is  plenty  or  not,  that  is,  whether  there  is  a  large 
portion  of  capital  unemployed  or  not,  when  the  currency  is  metallic,  we 
must  look  not  only  to  the  prices  of  commodities,  but  also  to  the  rate  of 


SPEECHES  OF  CLAY  AND  WEBSTER.  337 

interest.  A  low  rate  of  interest,  a  facility  of  obtaining  money  on  loans, 
a  disposition  to  invest  in  permanent  stocks,  all  of  which  are  proofs  that 
money  is  abundant,  do  not  infallibly  denote  a  state  of  the  highest  pros- 
perity. They  often  show  a  want  of  employment  for  capital ;  and  the 
accumulation  of  specie  shows  the  same  thing.  We  have  no  occasion  for 
the  precious  metals  as  money,  except  for  the  purpose  of  circula- 
tion, or  rather  of  sustaining  a  safe  paper  circulation.  And  when- 
ever there  is  a  prospect  of  a  profitable  investment  abroad,  all  the 
gold  and  silver,  except  what  these  purposes  require,  will  be  exported. 
So  if  a  demand  existed  abroad  for  sugar  and  cofibe,  whatever  amount 
of  these  articles  might  exist  in  the  country  beyond  the  wants  of  its  own 
consumption,  would  be  sent  abroad  to  meet  that  demand. 

The  high  rate  of  exchange,  too,  had  been  referred  to  as  a  proof  that 
we  were  on  the  downward  road  to  ruin.  The  speaker,  (Mr.  Clay,)  him- 
self had  adverted  to  that  topic;  and  he,  (Mr.  W.,)  feared  such  high 
authority  might  give  credit  to  opinions  clearly  unfounded,  and  leading  to 
wrong  conclusions.  Exchange  on  England,  before  the  late  rise,  had  been 
about  seven  and  a  half  per  cent,  advance.  What  did  this  provo  ?  No- 
thing, but  that  funds  were  wanted  in  England  for  commercial  opera- 
tions, to  be  carried  on  there  or  elsewhere.  It  did  not  necessarily  show  that 
we  were  indebted  to  England.  Even  if  it  did  prove  that  a  balance  was 
due  England,  at  the  moment,  it  would  not  explain  to  us  whether  our 
commerce  with  that  country  had  been  profitable  or  unprofitable.  But  it 
was  not  true  that  the  real  price  of  exchange  was  seven  and  a  half  per  cent, 
advance  ;  nor,  indeed,  that  there  was  any  advance  at  all.  It  was  not  true 
that  merchants  would  give  such  an  advance,  or  any  advance,  for  money 
in  England,  more  than  they  would  give  for  the  same  amount,  in  the  same 
currency,  here.  If  there  were  a  real  difi'erence  of  seven  and  a  half  per 
cent., money  would  be  immediately  shipped  to  England:  because  the 
expense  of  transportation  would  be  far  less  than  that  difference. 

The  true  state  of  exchange  between  the  two  countries,  was  to  be 
ascertained  by  looking  at  their  currencies,  and  by  comparing  the  quanti- 
ties of  gold  and  silver  which  they  respectively  represented.  The  Eng- 
lish standard  of  value  was  gold.  Ours  was  gold  and  silver  at  a  fixed 
relation  to  each  other.  But  our  estimate  of  silver  was  higher,  in  pro- 
portion to  gold,  than  England  and  most  other  nations  give  it :  conse- 
quently silver,  a  legal  currency  with  us,  remained  here,  while  gold  had 
gone  abroad ;  verifying  the  universal  truth,  that,  if  two  currencies 
of  different  values  are  allowed  to  exist,  the  cheapest  will  fill  up  the 
whole  circulation.  For  the  gold  that  would  suffice  to  pay  here  a  debt 
of  a  given  amount,  we  could  buy  in  England  more  silver  than  would  be 
necessary  to  pay  the  same  debt  here ;  and  from  this  difference  in  the 

22 


338  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMA  f . 

value  of  silver  arose  wholly,  or  in  a  great  measure,  the  apparent  differ- 
ence in  exchange.  The  Spanish  dollar  was  selling  in  England  for  four 
shillings  and  nine  pence  sterling  per  ounce,  equal  to  one  dollar  and  six 
cents.  By  our  standard,  the  same  ounce  was  worth  one  dollar  and  six- 
teen cents  ;  being  a  difference  of  about  nine  per  cent.  Hence  if  the 
nominal  advance  on  English  bills  did  not  exceed  nine  per  cent.,  the  real 
exchange  would  not  be  against  this  country ;  in  other  words,  it  did  not 
show  that  there  was  any  pressing  or  particular  occasion  for  the  remit- 
tance of  funds  to  England. 

Mr.  Webster  proceeded  to  state  some  objections  of  a  more  general 
nature  to  the  course  of  the  speaker's  observations-  He  had  argued  the 
question  as  if  all  domestic  industry  were  confined  to  the  production  of 
manufactured  articles.  Some  other  gentleman  had  spoken  of  the  price 
paid  for  every  foreign  manufactured  article,  as  so  much  given  for  the  en- 
couragement of  foreign  labor,  to  the  prejudice  of  our  own.  But  was  it 
not  the  product  of  our  own  labor  as  truly  as  if  we  had  manufactured  it 
ourselves  ?  One  man  makes  a  yard  of  cloth  at  home ;  another  raises 
agricultural  products,  and  buys  a  yard  of  imported  cloth.  Both  are  the 
earnings  of  domestic  industry ;  and  the  only  questions  arising  in  the  case 
are  two:  (1.)  Which  is  the  best  mode,  under  all  circumstances,  of  ob- 
taining the  article  ?  (2.)  How  far  should  this  question  be  decided  by 
government,  and  how  far  left  to  individual  discretion  ? 

It  had  been  asked  what  nations  had  ever  attained  eminent  prosperity 
without  encouraging  manufactures.  He  asked,  in  reply,  what  nation  had 
ever  reached  the  like  prosperity  without  promoting  foreign  trade.  These 
interests  were  closely  connected,  and  it  should  be  our  aim  to  cause  them 
to  flourish  together.  Most  of  our  revenue  being  collected  by  duties  on 
imports,  we  could,  without  exceeding  the  bounds  of  moderation,  give 
great  advantages  to  those  manufactures  which  we  might  think  it  most  use- 
ful to  promote  at  home.  But  he  objected  to  the  immoderate  use  of  the 
power ;  by  which  labor  would  be  diverted  from  occupations  in  which  it 
was  profitably  employed,  to  others  in  which  it  would  be  poorly  rewarded. 
He  apprehended  many  would  be  deprived  of  their  employments ;  and 
they  would  find  the  prices  of  the  commodities  they  needed,  enhanced,  in 
any  of  the  alternatives  the  speaker  had  presented.  He  had  told  us, 
they  might,  if  they  chose,  continue  to  buy  the  foreign  article.  But  the 
price  has  been  raised.  They  might  use  the  domestic  article.  The  price 
of  that  also  has  been  increased.  Let  them  then  supply  themselves  with 
their  own  fabric.  But  how  could  the  agriculturist  make  his  own  iron,  or 
the  ship  owner  grow  his  own  hemp  ? 

He  objected  also  to  the  speaker's  reasoning,  that  he  had  argued  the 
question  as  if  manufactures  were  now,  for  the  first  time,  to  receive  en- 


SPEECHES    OF    CLAY    AND    WEBSTER.  339 

couragement.  He  liad  adopted  the  modes  of  expression  used  elsewhere, 
and  asked  if  we  would  give  our  manufacturers  no  protection.  The  real 
question  was,  not  whether  duties  should  be  laid^  but  whether  they  should 
be  augmented.  It  was  forgotten  that  iron  and  hemp,  for  example, 
already  paid  a  burdensome  duty ;  yet,  from  the  general  tenor  of  the 
speaker's  observations,  one  would  infer  that  we  had  hitherto  taxed  our 
own  manufactures  rather  than  fostered  them  by  taxes  on  those  of  other 
countries. 

The  poverty  of  Spain  had  been  attributed  to  the  want  of  protection 
to  her  own  industry.  That  it  was  owing  to  bad  government  and  bad 
laws  was  true.  But  these  very  laws  were  bad  because  they  were  re- 
strictive. If  prohibition  were  protection,  Spain  would  seem  to  have  had 
enough  of  it.  Nothing  could  exceed  the  barbarous  rigidity  of  her  colo- 
nial system,  or  the  folly  of  her  early  commercial  regulations.  Unen- 
lightened and  bigoted  legislation,  the  multitude  of  her  holidays,  miser- 
able roads,  and  restrictive  laws,  he  believed  had  been  the  principal 
causes  of  the  bad  state  of  her  productive  industry.  And  any  partial 
improvement  in  her  condition  had  been  the  result  of  relaxation. 

Mr.  Webster  next  went  into  an  examination  of  the  bill  as  to  its 
probable  effects  upon  some  of  the  great  interests  of  the  country ;  and 
first,  as  to  the  foreign  trade.  It  was  lamentably  true,  as  the  speaker  had 
stated,  that  there  had  been  a  falling  off  in  the  tonnage  employed  in  that 
trade.  What  did  the  bill  propose  for  relief  ?  Nothing  but  new  burdens. 
It  proposed  to  diminish  its  employment,  and  at  the  same  time  to  aug- 
ment its  expense  by  subjecting  it  to  heavier  taxation.  The  shipping  in- 
terest, as  appeared  from  a  statement  he  had  submitted  to  the  committee, 
paid  annually  more  than  half  a  million  of  dollars  in  duties  on  articles 
used  in  the  construction  of  ships ;  to  which  it  was  proposed  to  add  nearly 
fifty  per  cent. 

Some  of  the  clauses  of  the  bill  Mr.  W.  approved;  to  others  he 
strongly  objected ;  and  most  of  all,  to  that  which  proposed  to  raise  the 
duty  on  iron,  an  article  of  great  importance  to  the  shipping  interest, 
which  he  represented.  The  annual  consumption  of  the  article  had  been 
estimated  at  50,000  tons ;  the  duty  on  which,  at  $15  per  ton,  amounted 
to  $750,000  ;  increasing  by  so  much  the  price  of  an  absolute  necessary 
of  life.  It  was  now  proposed  to  raise  the  duty  to  $22,50  per  ton,  which 
would  be  equal  to  $1,125,000  on  the  whole  annual  consumption.  The 
only  mitigation  of  this  burthen  imposed  for  the  benefit  of  the  producers 
of  the  article,  was  in  the  prospect  that  the  price  of  iron  would  be  re- 
duced by  this  domestic  competition  after  the  importation  should  be  pro- 
hibited.  But  it  was  easy  to  show  that  it  would  not  fall ;  and  the  result 
would  be,  that  the  $1,125,000  would  be  constantly  augmented  by  the  in- 


340  THE    AMEEICAN    STATESMAN. 

creased  consumption  of  the  article,  to  support  a  business  that  could  not 
support  itself.  It  was  of  no  consequence  to  the  argument  that  this  sum 
would  be  expended  at  home  :  so  it  would  be  if  the  people  were  taxed  to 
support  any  other  useless  and  expensive  establishment. 

The  price  of  iron  at  Stockholm  was  $53 ;  to  which  add  the  duty  of 
$15j  and  as  much  more  for  freight,  insurance,  &c.,  and  the  cost  would  be 
$83  in  the  American  market.  But  the  price  at  the  mine  in  which  it  was 
produced,  was  only  about  $40  per  ton  ;  so  that  the  present  duty,  with 
the  expense  of  transportation,  already  gave  the  American  manufacturer 
an  advantage  of  100  per  cent.  Why,  then,  could  not  iron  be  manufac- 
tured at  home  ?  The  answer  was  to  be  found  in  the  different  prices  of 
labor.  These  were  higher  here  than  in  any  other  civilized  state ;  and 
this  fact  was  the  greatest  of  all  proofs  of  general  happiness.  We  had 
been  asked  whether  we  would  allow  to  the  serfs  of  Russia  and  Sweden 
the  benefit  of  making  iron  for  us.  He  would  inform  the  gentleman  that 
these  serfs  did  not  earn  more  than  seven  cents  a  day.  And  he  asked 
whether  we  had  any  labor  in  this  country  that  could  not  be  better  em- 
ployed than  in  a  business  yielding  to  the  laborer  only  seven  cents  a  day. 
There  was  no  reason  for  saying  that  we  would  work  iron  because  we  had 
mountains  that  contained  ore.  He  said  the  true  inquiry  was,  whether 
we  could  produce  the  article  at  the  same,  or  nearly  the  same  cost  as  that 
at  which  we  could  import  it.  The  reason  why  our  citizens  should  not  be 
compelled  to  manufacture  our  own  iron  was,  that  they  were  far  better 
employed.  It  was  an  unproductive  business ;  and  they  were  not  poor 
enough  to  be  obliged  to  follow  it. 

The  effect  of  the  bill  in  its  operation  on  hemp,  was  also  considered. 
The  aggregate  amount  of  duties  on  the  hemp  and  iron  used  in  the  con- 
struction of  a  vessel  of  359  tons  burthen,  was  stated  to  be  $1056  ;  and, 
with  the  contemplated  increase,  it  would  be  $1400.  While  we  were  pro- 
posing to  add  new  burthens  to  the  shipping  interest,  our  great  commer- 
cial and  maritime  rival  was  pursuing  a  very  different  line  of  policy.  It 
was  the  sentiment  of  the  government  of  England,  that  the  first  of  all 
manufactures  was  the  manufacture  of  ships ;  and  very  important  regu- 
lations favorable  to  this  interest  had  been  adopted  within  the  last  year. 

Mr.  W.  concluded  by  saying,  that  there  were  some  parts  of  the  bill 
which  he  highly  approved ;  that  in  others  he  acquiesced ;  but  that  those 
to  which  he  had  stated  his  objections  appeared  to  him  so  destitute  of  all 
justice,  so  burthensome  and  so  dangerous  to  that  interest  which  had 
steadily  enriched,  gallantly  defended,  and  proudly  distinguished  us,  that 
nothing  could  prevail  upon  him  to  give  the  bill  his  support. 


ELECTION    OF    MR.    ADAMS.  341 


CHAPTEK  XXV. 

ELECTION  OF  MR.  ADAMS. THE  ALLEGED  COALITION  BE  tWEEN  ADAMS  AND 

CLAY. PROPOSITIONS  FOR  RETRENCHMENT  AND  REFORM. 

The  presidential  election  of  1824  was  one  of  deep  and  general  interest 
throughout  the  union.  The  names  of  at  least  six  candidates  had  been 
presented:  Messrs.  Adams,  Crawford,  Jackson,  Olay,  Calhoun,  and 
Clinton.  The  names  of  the  two  last,  however,  were  subsequently  with- 
drawn. 

The  practice  which  had  prevailed  since  1808,  of  making  nominations 
by  the  republican  members  of  congress,  had  become  unpopular.  The 
original  and  legitimate  object  of  a  caucus  was  to  enable  the  friends  of 
certain  principles  or  measures  to  concentrate  their  suffrages.  For  such 
purpose  a  caucus  had  become  unnecessary.  All  the  candidates  were 
regarded  as  republicans,  and  as  holding  to  the  same  general  principles. 
Old  party  lines,  as  respected  measures  of  public  policy,  had  become 
obliterated.  The  people  were  not  so  much  divided  upon  measures,  as 
in  the  choice  of  men.  And  when  political  contests  are  merely  for  men, 
caucuses  are  likely  to  become  instruments  of  corruption  and  intrigue. 
It  was  also  objected,  that,  as  the  public  sentiment  in  some  of  the  states 
.had  designated  certain  individuals  as  candidates,  the  members  of  a  con- 
gressional caucus  might  defeat  the  wishes  of  their  constituents.  And 
although  it  was  desirable  to  avoid  a  resort  to  the  house  of  representa- 
tives for  the  election  of  a  president,  the  candidates  were  so  numerous, 
and  the  attachment  of  the  people  to  their  respective  favorites  was  so 
firm,  as  to  preclude  the  belief  that  a  caucus  nomination  would  at  all 
increase  the  chances  of  an  election  by  the  people.  The  object  of  a 
caucus  was  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Crawford ;  which  had  few  advocates 
beyond  the  circle  of  his  particular  friends. 

Not  only  was  the  public  feeling  on  this  subject  expressed  in  meetings 
of  the  people ;  formal  action  was  taken  upon  it  by  the  legislatures  of 
several  of  the  states,  whose  decisions  were  communicated  to  their  repre- 
sentatives in  congress.  The  newspaper  press,  too,  took  an  active  part 
in  the  discussion.  A  leading  paper  opposed  to  a  caucus,  was  Niles' 
Register.  The  National  Intelligencer,  the  Albany  Argus,  and  the 
Kichmond  Enquirer,  were  among  its  prominent  advocates. 

A  caucus,  or,  as  it  was  termed,  "  a  meeting  of  the  republican  mem- 
bers of  congress,"  was  held  on  the  14th  of  February,  1824.  Of  the 
258  members,  only  68  attended.     The  number  in  attendance  being  so 


342  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

small,  a  motion  was  made  to  adjourn  to  the  20th  of  March ;  but,  a 
majority  being  opposed  to  the  adjournment,  the  meeting  proceeded  to 
ballot  for  a  candidate  for  president.  Of  the  68  votes  given,  Wm.  H. 
Crawford  received  64 ;  John  Quincj  Adams,  2 ;  Andrew  Jackson,  1 ; 
and  Nathaniel  Macon,  1.  For  vice-president,  Albert  Gallatm  received 
57  votes. 

From  a  brief  history  of  congressional  caucuses  in  Niles'  Register, 
(vol.  XXV,  pp.  244,  258,)  the  following  facts  appear : 

In  February,  1800,  ''  certain  federalists" — members  of  congress,  it  is 
presumed — held  a  meeting  in  the  senate-chamber  to  consult  on  matters 
relating  to  the  ensuing  presidential  election.  This  caucus  was  de- 
nounced in  the  Philadelphia  Aurora,  a  republican  paper,  as  a  "Jacobin- 
ical conclave;"  for  which,  and  for  other  statements,  its  editor,  William 
Duane,  was  arrested,  and  brought  to  the  bar  of  the  senate  to  answer 
for  his  "  false,  defamatory,  scandalous,  and  malicious  assertions,"  &c. 
Soon  after,  there  was  a  meeting  of  a  few  members,  who  pledged  them- 
selves to  the  support  of  Messrs.  Jefferson  and  Burr.  This  meeting  is 
said  to  have  been  caused  by  a  complaint  on  the  part  of  northern  repub- 
licans, that  Mr.  Burr  had  not  been  duly  supported  by  the  party  at  the 
south,  in  1797. 

The  first  "  regular  republican  caucus"  appears  to  have  been  held  on 
the  25th  of  February,  1804.  Its  chief  object  was  to  fix  upon  a  candi- 
date for  vice-president.  Mr.  Jefferson,  however,  was  named  for  reelec- 
tion, and  George  Clinton  for  vice-president. 

On  the  19th  of  January,  1808,  a  meeting  of  the  republican  members 
of  congress  to  nominate  candidates  for  president  and  vice-president,  was 
called  by  Stephen  R.  Bradley,  a  senator  from  Vermont.  The  circular  in 
which  the  call  was  made  commenced  thus  :  "  In  pursuance  o{thepowe7-s 
vested  in  me,  as  president  of  the  late  convention  of  the  republican  mem- 
bers of  both  houses  of  congress,  I  deem  it  expedient,"  &c.  The  meeting 
was  to  be  held  on  the  23d  of  January,  1808.  The  issuing  of  this  call  in 
this  ];nandatory  style,  was  indignantly  denounced  by  several  members  as 
a  usurpation  of  power  ;  and  a  large  portion  of  the  members  refused  to 
attend ;  unwilling,  as  was  remarked,  "  to  countenance,  by  their  presence, 
the  inidnight  intrigues  of  any  set  of  men  who  may  arrogate  to  them- 
selves the  right,  (which  belongs  only  to  the  people,)  of  selecting  proper 
persons  to  fill  the  important  offices  of  president  and  vice-president. 

The  meeting  was  attended,  however,  by  ninety-four  members  of  both 
houses — only  one  from  the  state  of  New  York.  Mr.  Madison  was 
nominated  with  apparent  unanimity,  though  Mr.  Monroe  had  been  sup- 
ported, out  of  doors^  by  a  strong  party  of  men,  among  whom  were  some 
who  were  unfriendly  to  the  policy  of  Mr,  Jefferson,     These  differences 


ELECTION    OF    MR.    ADAMS.  343 

in  the  republican  party  grew  to  such  extent,  as  almost  to  produce  the 
political  ejection  of  Mr.  Monroe;  a  fate  actually  experienced  by  De 
Witt  Clinton  four  years  afterward,  for  permitting  his  name  to  be  used 
against  that  of  Mr.  Madison.  Through  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and 
others,  who  deprecated  a  rupture  in  the  party  in  the  state  of  Virginia, 
a  reconciliation  was  at  length  effected. 

The  next  congressional  caucus  was  held  on  the  1 8th  of  May,  1812, 
at  which  82  members  attended ;  the  whole  number  of  republican  mem- 
bers of  both  houses  being  133.  All  the  votes  given  at  this  caucus  were 
for  Madison.  The  caucus  of  1816  was  held  on  the  16th  of  March,  and 
was  attended  by  1 18  out  of  the  141  republican  members.  Mr.  Clay,  of 
Kentucky,  and  Mr.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  offered  resolutions  declaring 
it  inexpedient  to  proceed  to  a  nomination;  but  the  proposition  was 
negatived.  Mr.  Monroe  received  65  votes,  and  Mr.  Crawford,  54.  In 
1820,  no  caucus  was  held — there  being  no  organized  opposition  to  the 
republican  party. 

As  had  been  apprehended,  the  nomination  made  by  the  caucus  in 
1824,  failed  of  securing  to  Mr.  Crawford  that  advantage  which  former 
nominees  had  derived  from  regular  republican  nominations.  So  odious 
had  this  system  become,  that  the  nomination  was  believed  to  have  actu- 
ally diminished  rather  than  increased  his  strength  as  a  candidate. 

The  whole  number  of  votes  of  the  electoral  colleges,  was  261  ;  of 
which  there  were  given  for  Jackson  99,  Adams  84,  Crawford  41,  Clay  37. 
John  C.  Calhoun  received  for  vice-president  182  votes,  against  78  for  all 
others.  The  electors  having  failed  to  elect  a  president,  that  duty 
devolved  upon  the  house  of  representatives ;  the  election  to  be  made 
from  the  three  candidates  having  the  highest  numbers  of  votes,  and  the 
vote  to  be  taken  by  states.  The  election  by  the  house  took  place  on  the 
9th  of  February,  1825,  immediately  after  the  canvass  of  the  electoral 
vote.  Mr.  Adams  received  the  votes  of  13  states,  General  Jackson  7 
states,  and  Mr.  Crawford  4  states.  Mr.  Adams  having  a  majority  of  the 
states,  he  was  declared  elected  for  four  years  from  the  4th  of  March,  1 825. 

A  committee  appointed  by  the  house  for  that  purpose,  informed  Mr. 
Adams  of  his  election,  and  reported  the  fact  to  the  house  the  next  day, 
with  the  following  answer  : 

"  Gentlemen  :  In  receiving  this  testimonial  from  the  representatives 
of  the  people  and  states  of  this  union,  I  am  deeply  sensible  of  the  circum- 
stances under  which  it  has  been  givea  All  my  predecessors  in  the  high 
station  to  which  the  favor  of  the  house  now  calls  me,  have  been  honored 
with  majorities  of  the  electoral  voices  in  their  primary  colleges.  It  has 
been  my  fortune  to  be  placed,  by  the  divisions  of  sentiment  prevailing 
among  our  countrymen  on  this  occasion,  in  competition,  friendly  and 


344  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

honorable,  with  three  of  my  fellow-citizens,  all  justly  enjoying,  in  emi- 
nent degrees,  the  public  favor ;  and  of  whose  worth,  talents,  and  services 
no  one  entertains  a  higher  and  more  respectful  sense  than  myself.  The 
names  of  two  of  them  were,  in  the  fulfillment  of  the  provisions  of  the 
constitution,  presented  to  the  selection  of  the  house,  in  concurrence  with 
my  own ;  names  closely  associated  with  the  glory  of  the  nation,  and  one 
of  them  further  recommended  by  a  larger  minority  of  the  primary  elec- 
toral suffrages  than  mine. 

"  In  this  state  of  things,  could  my  refusal  to  accept  the  trust  thus  dele- 
gated to  me,  give  an  immediate  opportunity  to  express  with  a  nearer 
approach  to  unanimity,  the  object  of  their  preference,  I  should  not  hesi- 
tate to  decline  the  acceptance  of  this  eminent  charge,  and  to  submit  the 
decision  of  this  momentous  question  again  to  their  determination.  But 
the  constitution  itself,  has  not  so  disposed  of  the  contingency  which  would 
arise  in  the  event  of  my  refusal ;  I  shall  therefore  repair  to  the  post 
assigned  me  by  the  call  of  my  country,  signified  through  her  constitu- 
tional organs  ;  oppressed  with  the  magnitude  of  the  task  before  me,  but 
cheered  with  the  hope  of  that  generous  support  of  my  fellow-citizens, 
which,  in  the  vicissitudes  of  a  life  devoted  to  their  service,  has  never 
failed  to  sustain  me — confident  in  the  trust  that  the  wisdom  of  the  legis- 
lative councils  will  guide  and  direct  me  in  the  path  of  my  official  duty,  and 
relying,  above  all,  upon  the  superintending  providence  of  that  Being  '  in 
whose  hand  our  breath  is,  and  whose  are  all  our  ways.' 

"  Gentlemen  :  I  pray  you  to  make  acceptable  to  the  house,  the  assur- 
ance of  my  profound  gratitude  for  their  confidence,  and  to  accept  your- 
selves my  thanks  for  the  friendly  terms  in  which  you  have  communicated 
to  me  their  decision." 

John  Quincy  Adams  was  inaugurated  as  president  of  the  United 
States,  on  the  4th  of  March,  1825.  The  senate  being  in  session,  the 
president  immediately  nominated  his  cabinet  officers :  Henry  Clay,  of 
Kentucky,  for  secretary  of  state ;  Richard  Bush,  for  secretary  of  the 
treasury  ;  James  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  for.  secretary  of  war.  The  nomi- 
nations of  the  two  last  named  gentlemen  were  unanimously  confirmed, 
that  of  Mr.  Clay,  for  reasons  which  will  soon  appear,  was  warmly  opposed. 
The  vote  was  27  in  favor  of  his  appointment,  and  14  against  it.  Samuel 
L.  Southard,  of  New  Jersey,  was  continued  secretary  of  the  navy ;  Wil- 
liam Wirt,  of  Virginia,  then  attorney-general,  was  also  continued  in 
office.  The  postmaster-general  was  not  then  a  cabinet  officer.  The  in- 
cumbent, John  M'Lean,  was  retained  in  that  office. 

With  a  cabinet  composed  of  men  so  able  and  distinguished,  it  might 
be  supposed  that  the  new  administration  had  commenced  under  the  most 
favorable  auspices,  and  could  not  fail  to  attain  a  high  degree  of  popular- 


ALLEGED  COALITION  BETWEEN  ADAMS  AND  CLAY.        3  45 

ity.  It  had,  however,  scarcely  entered  upon  its  career,  before  thOre  were 
unerring  indications  of  a  determined  opposition.  This  opposition,  so 
early  formed,  could  not  have  been  based  upon  the  acts  of  the  administra- 
tion. It  had  its  origin  chiefly  in  the  disaffection  of  the  friends  of  the 
unsuccessful  candidates,  increased,  if  not  wholly  produced,  by  the  sus- 
picion of  Mr.  Adams  having  obtained  his  election  by  a  bargain  with  Mr. 
Clay  and  his  friends,  who,  it  was  alleged,  had  voted  for  him  with  the 
understanding  that,  in  case  of  his  election,  Mr.  Clay  was  to  receive  the 
appointment  of  secretary  of  state. 

The  friends  of  General  Jackson,  having  expected  the  votes  of  the 
western  members  for  their  candidate,  expressed  their  indignation  at  the 
course  of  these  members,  and  declared  Messrs.  Adams  and  Clay  to  have 
been  parties  to  a  "  corrupt  coalition"  which  had  thwarted  the  will  of  the 
people.  The  election  was  soon  followed  by  an  excitement,  which,  for 
intensity  and  bitterness,  has  rarely  been  exceeded  in  this  country.  This 
important  affair,  involving  as  it  does,  the  character  of  some  of  our  most 
distinguished  public  men,  deserves  more  than  a  passing  notice. 

A  few  weeks  prior  to  the  election  by  the  house  of  representatives,  there 
appeared  in  the  Columbian  Observer,  published  in  the  city  of  Philadel- 
phia, a  letter  purporting  to  have  been  written  by  a  member  of  the  house 
of  representatives  belonging  to  the  Pennsylvania  delegation,  and  impli- 
cating the  conduct  of  Mr.  Clay  in  regard  to  the  pending  presidential 
election.  The  letter  says  :  "  For  some  time  past,  the  friends  of  Clay 
have  hinted  that  they,  like  the  Swiss,  would  fight  for  those  who  would 
pay  best.  Overtures  were  said  to  have  been  made  by  the  friends  of 
Adams  to  the  friends  of  Clay,  offering  him  the  appointment  of  secretary 
of  state  for  his  aid  to  elect  Adams.  And  the  friends  of  Clay  gave  this 
information  to  the  friends  of  Jackson,  and  hinted  that,  if  the  friends  of 
Jackson  would  offer  the  same  price,  they  would  close  with  them.  But 
none  of  the  friends  of  Jackson  would  descend  to  such  mean  barter  and 
sale.  *  *  *  It  is  now  ascertained  to  a  certainty,  that  Henry  Clay  has 
transferred  his  interest  to  Mr.  John  Q.  Adams.  As  a  consideration  for 
this  abandonment  of  duty  to  his  constituents,  it  is  said  and  believed, 
should  this  unholy  coalition  prevail,  Clay  is  to  be  appointed  secretary 
of  state." 

This  letter  was  followed  by  "  A  Card"  from  Mr.  Clay,  repelling  the 
accusation,  pronouncing  the  member,  whoever  he  might  be,  "  a  base  and 
infamous  calumniator,"  and  holding  him  "  responsible,  if  he  dared  un- 
veil himself,  to  all  the  laws  which  govern  and  regulate  the  conduct  of 
men  of  honor."  "Whereupon,  in  "Another  Card,"  George  Kremer 
acknowledged  the  authorship  of  the  letter,  and  declared  himself  ready 
to  prove  the  statements  therein  contained. 


346  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

Mr.  Clay,  on  the  same  day,  (February  3,)  called  the  aitention  of  the 
house  to  the  subject,  and  requested  an  investigation  of  the  charges.  A 
committee  was  accordingly  appointed  for  this  purpose,  although  not  until 
after  two  days'  debate.  On  the  9th,  the  committee  reported,  that  Kremer 
had  declined  appearing  before  them  to  give  any  evidence  or  explanation 
touching  the  charges  against  the  speaker,  alleging  that  he  could  not  do 
so  without  appearing  either  as  an  accuser  or  a  witness ;  both  of  which  he 
protested  against.  The  committee,  if  they  had  known  any  reason  for  the 
investigation,  would  have  asked  for  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers; 
but  having  no  such  knowledge,  they  only  laid  before  the  house  the  letter 
of  Mr.  Kremer  to  the  committee.         , 

On  the  25th  of  February,  Mr.  Kremer  appeared  in  an  address  to  his 
constituents,  stating  the  grounds  of  his  charges  against  Mr.  Clay ;  among 
which  were,  (1.)  Mr.  Clay's  disregard  of  the  instruction  of  the  legislature 
of  Kentucky  to  vote  for  Gen.  Jackson,  contrary  to  his  well  known  recog- 
nition of  the  right  of  the  people  to  instruct  their  representatives,  and  of 
the  obligation  of  the  representative  to  obey  the  known  will  of  his  consti- 
tuents. (2.)  He  and  his  friends  had,  through  the  whole  canvass  for  the 
presidency,  been  decidedly  hostile  to  Mr.  Adams'  election.  (3.)  He  had 
persuaded  western  members  friendly  to  Gen.  Jackson  to  remain  uncom- 
mitted, and  to  agree  to  go  together,  before  determining  on  the  candidate 
they  would  finally  support.  (4.)  A  member  from  Kentucky  had  observed  to 
him  (Kremer)  that  if  Jackson  should  be  elected,  Adams,  it  was  said,  would 
remain  secretary  of  state  ;  and  desired  to  know,  if  Clay  and  his  friends 
should  aid  in  electing  Jackson,  what  Jackson  would  do  for  Kentucky. 
(5.)  The  office  of  secretary  of  state  had  been  offered  to  him,  and  he  had 
agreed  to  accept  it. 

On  the  appearance  of  this  letter  in  the  Washington  City  Gazette, 
William  Brent,  a  member  from  Louisiana,  published  in  the  National 
Journal  a  statement,  confirmed  by  two  other  gentlemen  who  were  pre- 
sent, that,  on  the  day  of  the  debate  on  the  proposition  to  refer  Mr. 
Clay's  communication  respecting  Mr.  Kremer's  card  to  a  committee,  he 
heard  K.  declare  that  he  never  intended  to  charge  Mr.  Clay  with  cor- 
ruption or  dishonor  in  his  intended  vote  for  Mr.  Adams ;  or  that  he  had 
transferred,  or  could  transfer,  the  votes  or  interest  of  his  friends.  This 
statement  of  Mr.  Brent,  together  with  certain  other  reasons,  induced 
the  belief,  that  he  was  not  the  writer  of  the  communications  bearing  his 
signature ;  and  that  he  had  been  made  an  instrument  for  furthering  the 
designs  of  others.  Indeed,  in  an  address  "  to  the  public,"  it  was  stated 
by  Mr.  F.  Johnson,  of  Kentucky,  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Crowninshield, 
of  Massachusetts,  in  whose  presence  the  acknowledgment  had  been 
made,  that  Mr.  K.  had  not  written  the  letter  of  the  25th  of  January. 


ALLEGED  COALITION  BETWEEN  ADAMS  AND  CLAY.        347 

Mr.  Clay,  under  date  of  March  26,  1825,  through  the  National  Jour- 
nal, addressed  the  people  of  the  congressional  district  he  had  represented, 
in  vindication  of  the  course  he  had  taken  in  the  election.  •  He  said,  the 
fact  that  one  of  the  three  candidates  returned  had  received  a  plurality 
of  the  electoral  votes,  gave  him  no  claim  to  the  support  of  the  house. 
The  will  of  the  99  could  not  righfully  control  the  remaining  162,  nor 
any  one  of  them  :  although  it  was  a  consideration  which  the  house  was 
called  upon  to  weigh  in  making  up  its  judgment.  The  precarious  state 
of  Mr.  Crawford's  health,  the  small  number  of  votes  he  had  received,  and 
the  impracticability  of  his  election,  were  conclusive  reasons  against  him. 
As  between  Gen.  Jackson  and  Mr.  Adams,  the  consideration  of  plurality 
was  of  less  weight,  and  overbalanced  by  that  of  the  superior  fitness  of 
the  latter. 

The  resolutions  of  the  Kentucky  legislature  requesting  the  delegation 
from  that  state  to  vote  for  Gen.  Jackson,  though  entitled  to  respect, 
were  not  to  be  regarded  as  binding.  The  legislature,  though  speaking 
in  behalf  of  the  people,  had  had  no  means  of  ascertaining  their  wishes 
since  the  electors  were  chosen,  when  they  had  decided  against  the  gene- 
ral. Besides,  he  had  received  directly^  from  many  of  his  constituents, 
an  expression  of  their  disapprobation  of  the  request  of  the  legislature, 
with  instructions  to  vote  agreeably  to  his  own  judgment. 

That  he  had  not  been  in  favor  of  Mr.  Adams'  election  when  the  con- 
test was  before  the  people,  was  true.  Neither  was  he  in  favor  of  the 
election  of  Gen.  Jackson  or  Mr.  Crawford.  But  during  his  whole  ac- 
quaintance with  Mr.  Adams,  there  had  been  no  interruption  to  the 
courtesies  and  hospitalities  of  social  intercourse.  He  (Mr.  Clay,)  was 
said  to  be  under  a  public  pledge  to  expose  some  reprehensible  conduct 
of  Mr.  Adams  in  the  negotiation  at  Ghent.  The  letter  which  he  had 
published  in  1822,*  adverting  to  the  controversy  between  Mr.  Russell 
and  Mr.  Adams,  did  not  justify  such  a  conclusion.  He  had  ascribed  to 
both  parties,  and  particularly  to  Mr.  Adams,  "  some  errors,  (no  doubt 
unintentional,)  both  as  to  matters  of  fact  and  matters  of  opinion,  in  re- 
gard to  the  transactions  at  Ghent,  relating  to  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi,  and  certain  liberties  claimed  by  the  United  States  in  the 
fisheries,  and  to  the  part  he  (Mr.  Clay,)  bore  in  these  transactions;"  and 
promised  ''  at  some  future  period  to  lay  before  the  public  a  narrative  of 
those  transactions  as  he  understood  them."  As  to  the  time  of  executing 
this  promise,  he  claimed  for  himself  the  exclusive  right  to  judge.  He 
had  never  given  Gen.  Jackson  or  his  friends  any  reason  to  expect  his 
support ;  and  no  one  ought  to  have  been  disappointed  by  his  not  having 
voted  for  him. 

The  1st  session  of  the  19th  congress,  and  the  first  under  Mr.  Adams* 


348  THE    AMERICAN   STATESMAN. 

administration,  commenced  on  the  5th  of  December,  1 825.  In  the  senate, 
the  administration  had  a  decided  majority.  In  the  house  of  representa- 
tives, the  majority,  if,  indeed,  there  was  any,  was  small,  as  was  indicated 
by  the  vote  on  the  choice  of  speaker ;  John  W.  Taylor,  of  New  York, 
having  been  elected  on  the  second  ballot,  by  99  votes  against  94  for  all 
other  candidates.  By  the  union,  however,  of  the  friends  of  Gen.  Jackson 
and  Mr.  Crawford,  in  both  houses,  it  was  found  difficult — in  some  cases 
impossible — to  carry  the  measures  of  the  administration. 

The  introduction  of  certain  extraordinary  questions  into  both  branches 
of  congress,  prevented  the  consideration  of  several  important  measures 
suggested  in  the  president's  message.  One  of  these  extraordinary  sub- 
jects was  a  proposition,  by  Mr.  Benton,  to  amend  the  constitution 
respecting  the  election  of  president  and  vice-president ;  suggested,  doubt- 
less, by  the  result  of  the  recent  election.  The  mode  proposed  was  by  a 
direct  vote  of  the  people,  in  districts. 

Mr.  Benton  also  reported  (March  1, 1826,)  in  favor  of  an  amendment 
of  the  constitution,  making  members  of  congress  ineligible  to  any  civil 
office  under  the  general  government,  during  the  presidential  term  in 
which  they  shall  have  served.  Also  as  chairman  of  a  select  committee 
appointed  "  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  reducing  the  patronage  of 
the  executive  government,"  he  made  a  report,  (May  4,)  stating  it  as  the 
conclusion  of  the  committee,  that  the  amount  of  patronage  now  exer- 
cised by  the  president,  might  and  ought  to  be  reduced  by  law,  and  pre- 
Benting  six  bills  for  that  purpose :  (1.)  A  bill  to  regulate  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  public  advertisements.  (2.)  A  bill  to  secure  in 
office  the  faithful  collectors  and  disbursers  of  the  revenue,  and  to  dis- 
place defaulters.  (3,  4,  and  5.)  Bills  to  regulate  the  appointment  of 
postmasters,  cadets,  and  midshipmen.  (6.)  A  bill  to  prevent  military 
and  naval  officers  from  being  dismissed  the  service  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
president. 

The  appointment,  by  Mr.  Adams,  of  Mr.  Clay  and  several  other  mem- 
bers of  congress  to  important  offices,  and  the  withdrawing  of  the  pat- 
ronage of  the  printing  of  the  laws  from  some  of  the  newspapers  opposed 
to  the  administration,  and  bestowing  it  upon  others  that  supported  it, 
will  sufficiently  explain  the  object  of  these  two  last  mentioned  reports. 

The  people  alone  being  competent  to  change  the  constitution,  the 
committee  say  :  "  Not  being  able  to  lay  the  axe  at  the  root  of  the  tree, 
they  (congress)  must  go  to  pruning  the  limbs  and  branches.  Not  being 
able  to  reform  the  constitution  in  the  election  of  president,  they  must  go 
to  work  upon  his  powers,  and  trim  down  these  by  statutory  enactnients, 
wherever  it  can  be  done  by  law,  and  with  a  just  regard  to  the  efficiency 
of  the  government.     *     *     *     They  (the  committee)  have  only  touched, 


PROPOSITIONS    FOR    RETRENCHMENT   AND    REFORM.  349 

in  four  places,  the  vast  and  pervading  system  of  federal  executive  pat- 
ronage :  the  press — ^the  post-ofl&ce — the  armed  force — and  the  appoint- 
ing power.  They  are  few,  compared  to  the  whole  number  of  points 
which  the  system  presents  \  but  they  are  points  vital  to  the  liberties  of 
the  country.  The  press  is  put  foremost,  because  it  is  the  moving  power 
of  human  action ;  the  post-office  is  the  handmaid  of  the  press  ;  the  armed 
force  its  executor ;  and  the  appointing  power  the  directress  of  the  whole. 
If  the  appointing  power  was  itself  an  emanation  of  the  popular  will — if 
the  president  was  himself  the  officer  and  the  organ  of  the  people — there 
would  be  less  danger  in  leaving  to  his  will  the  sole  direction  of  all  these 
arbiters  of  human  fate.  But  things  must  be  taken  as  they  are;  states- 
men must  act  for  the  country  they  live  in,  and  not  for  the  island  of 
Utopia ;  they  must  act  upon  the  state  of  facts  in  that  country,  and  not 
upon  the  visions  of  fancy.  In  the  country  for  which  the  committee  act, 
the  press,  with  some  exceptions,  the  post-office,  the  armed  force,  and  the 
appointing  power,  are  in  the  hands  of  the  president,  and  the  president 
himself  is  not  in  the  hands  of  the  people.  The  president  may,  and  in 
the  current  of  human  affairs,  will  be,  against  the  people;  and,  in  his 
hands,  the  arbiters  of  human  fate  must  be  against  them  also.  This  will 
not  do.  The  possibility  of  it  must  be  avoided.  The  safety  of  the  peo- 
ple is  the  '  supreme  law;'  and  to  insure  that  safety,  these  arbiters  of 
human  fate  must  change  position,  and  take  post  on  the  side  of  the 
people." 

By  the  first  of  these  bills,  the  selection  of  newspapers  for  the  publica- 
tion of  the  laws,  then  made  by  the  secretary  of  state,  was  to  be  made  in 
each  state  by  its  senators  and  representatives  in  congress.  The  second 
bill  required  the  president,  in  all  nominations  to  fill  vacancies,  occasioned 
by  the  exercise  of  the  president's  power  to  remove  from  office,  to  state 
to  the  senate  his  reasons  for  the  removal.  And  the  offices  of  all  collec- 
tors and  disbursers  of  public  moneys  who  should  fail  to  account  for  the 
same,  were  to  be  vacated.  Postmasters  whose  en^oluments  exceeded  a 
certain  sum,  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  president  and  senate.  Cadets 
and  midshipmen  were  to  be  taken,  one  of  each  from  each  congressional 
district  in  the  state,  and  the  two  corresponding  to  the  number  of  senators, 
from  the  state  at  large.  Officers  in  the  army  and  navy  were  not  there- 
after to  hold  their  offices  "  during  the  pleasure  of  the  president,"  but 
"  during  good  behavior." 

Mr.  Tazewell  having  moved  the  printing  of  an  extra  number  of  the 
report  and  bills,  Mr.  Randolph  said  he  "hoped  the  largest  number 
would  be  printed  that  had  been  printed  of  any  document  during  the  pre- 
sent session."  He  wished  the  number  to  be  equal  to  that  of  a  certain 
document  which  he  called  "  a  message  to  the  house  to  announce  an  eleo- 


350  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tioneermg  arrangement;"  alluding,  as  is  supposed,  to  the  message  on 
the  proposed  Panama  mission.  Mr.  E.  said :  "  Though  he  had  little 
faith  in  the  strength  of  the  virus  of  the  executive  poison  which  was 
attempted  to  be  instilled  into  the  public  mind,  he  wished  the  antidote  to 
•proceed  with  it,  pari passu.''^  Accordingly  6,000  copies  were  ordered 
printed. 

The  bills  were  at  the  same  time  ordered  to  a  second  reading ;  but  no 
farther  action  appears  to  have  been  taken  upon  them  at  that  session, 
except  to  lay  them  on  the  table,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Macon,  who  had 
collected  the  facts  and  matured  the  subject,  but  whose  ill  health  pre- 
vented his  entering  into  the  discussion  of  it. 

From  the  unusual  number  of  candidates  for  the  presidency  for  more 
than  a  year  before  the  election  of  1824,  it  was  apprehended  that  there 
would  be  no  election  by  the  presidential  electors.  To  prevent  an  ulti- 
mate resort  to  the  house  of  representatives,  as  well  as  to  secure  a  uni- 
form mode  of  choosing  electors  in  the  several  states,  numerous  attempts 
were  made  in  congress  to  propose  to  the  states  certain  amendments  to 
the  constitution.  Also  bills  were  introduced  into  the  legislatures  of 
several  states  in  which  electors  were  chosen  by  the  legislature,  proposing 
to  place  the  election  in  the  hands  of  the  people. 

In  the  legislature  of  New  York,  a  bill  for  this  purpose  passed  the 
assembly,  but  was  negatived  in  the  senate.  The  defeat  of  the  bill  pro- 
duced general  dissatisfaction,  which  was  plainly  expressed  at  the  next 
election  of  members  of  the  legislature.  In  accordance  with  the  will  of  the 
people,  indicated  by  the  return  of  a  majority  to  both  houses  in  favor  of 
the  proposed  change,  an  electoral  law  was  passed  at  the  next  session. 
This  law,  however,  did  not  prescribe  the  mode  of  choosing  the  electors, 
but  provided  for  submitting  to  the  people,  at  their  next  annual  election, 
(in  1825,)  the  question,  whether  the  electors  should  be  chosen  by  general 
ticket,  or  singly  in  the  several  congressional  districts.  The  district  sys- 
tem was  adopted ;  »but  before  the  next  presidential  election,  it  was 
changed  to  the  general  ticket  system,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  to  the 
state  an  undivided  vote  in  the  election  of  president. 

Propositions  to  amend  the  constitution  were  renewed  at  the  next  ses- 
sion. Among  the  plans  submitted,  was  that  of  Col.  Benton,  just  alluded 
to,  proposing,  (1.)  A  uniform  mode  by  districts.  (2.)  The  president 
and  vice-president  to  be  elected  by  a  direct  vote  of  the  people.  (3.)  In 
case  no  candidate  had  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  first  given,  a 
second  election  was  to  be  held  and  conducted  as  the  first ;  the  choice  to 
be  made  from  the  two  candidates  having  received  the  highest  numbers 
of  votes  for  the  same  office.  This  plan  was  very  elaborately  and  ably 
argued  in  the  report. 


PROrOSITIONS   FOR    RETRENCHMENT    AND    REFORM.  351 

Choosing  by  electors,  it  was  said,  enabled  the  majority  to  impress  the 
minority  into  their  service,  put  it  into  the  power  of  a  few  to  control  the 
election,  and  enabled  the  populous  states  to  consolidate  their  votes,  and  tc 
overwhelm  the  small  ones.  Electing  by  legislative  ballot,  took  the  elec- 
tion out  of  the  hands  of  the  people,  left  it  with  a  preexisting  body 
chosen  for  a  diiferent  purpose,  and  enabled  the  dominant  party  in  the 
legislature  to  bestow  the  vote  of  the  state  according^ to  their  own  sense 
of  duty  or  private  interest.  Whereas,  the  district  system  gave  to  every 
state,  and  to  the  several  sections  of  the  state,  due  weight  in  the  elec- 
tion. Besides,  it  was  a  mode  of  election  in  which  either  electors  might 
be  used,  or  a  direct  vote  might  be  given  by  the  people. 

The  advantages  expected  from  the  institution  of  electors,  the  report  ^ 
continued,  had  never  been  realized.  It  was  the  intention  of  the  framers 
of  the  constitution  to  provide  an  independent  body  of  men,  chosen  by 
the  people  from  among  themselves,  on  account  of  their  superior  discern- 
ment, virtue,  and  information,  who  should  be  left  to  make  the  election 
according  to  their  own  will.  But  the  electors  were  not  the  independent 
body  they  were  intended  to  be :  they  had  no  discretion.  Candidates 
were  selected  by  the  people ;  and  the  electors  were  mere  agents,  and  in 
a  case  where  no  agency  was  necessary.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  were 
really  independent,  such  independence  was  incompatible  with  the  safety 
of  the  people.  As  was  well  known,  they  were  oftener  selected  for  their 
devotion  to  a  party  and  electioneering  tact,  than  for  excellence  of  charac- 
ter. Hence  the  propriety  of  giving  to  the  qualified  electors  a  direct 
vote  in  the  election  of  president  and  vice-president. 

A  direct  election,  it  was  also  said,  accorded  better  with  the  theory 
of  our  government.  The  principle  that  the  mass,  upon  whom  the  laws 
operated,  should  elect  those  who  make  the  laws,  was  equally  applicable 
to  those  who  execute  the  laws,  and  especially  in  the  case  of  the  president, 
who,  in  executing  them,  has  at  his  command,  not  only  the  army  and  the 
navy,  but  the  judiciary,  and  numerous  other  officers  of  his  own  appoint- 
ment. The  apprehension,  on  the  part  of  the  framers,  that  a  popular 
election  of  president  would  be  too  tumultuous,  and  likely  to  be  attended 
with  violence,  was  without  foundation.  The  state  elections,  at  which  the 
highest  state  officers  and  representatives  in  congress,  had  for  nearly  forty 
years  been  chosen  directly  by  the  popular  vote,  afi'orded  no  cause  of 
alarm.  Our  liberties  had  far  more  to  fear  from  indifference  and  a  neglect 
of  the  elective  franchise,  than  from  excesses  of  violence.  The  last  elec- 
tion was  eminently  adapted  to  excite  the  feelings  of  the  people  ;  yet  not 
one-half  of  the  voters  of  the  United  States  had  been  got  to  the  polls. 

The  committee  laid  down  these  axioms:  To  prevent  corruption^ 
(1.)  Multiply  the  voters.     (2.)  Keep  the  candidates  from  among  them. 


352  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

(3.)  Avoid  preexisting  bodies  of  electors.  To  prevent  violence  and 
avoid  coalitions^  separate  the  electors.  The  plan  of  the  committee,  the 
report  said,  had  been  brought  to  the  test  of  each  of  these  axioms,  and 
found  to  abide  them.  The  voters  would  consist  of  millions,  and  could 
not  be  corrupted ;  they  would  be  scattered  over  the  territory  of  the  whole 
confederation,  and  could  not  hold  intercourse  with  the  candidates  ;  they 
would  vote  at  several  thousand  different  places  on  the  same  hours  of  the 
day,  and  could  neither  fight  nor  coalesce  ;  they  were  not  a  preexisting 
body,  in  the  sense  of  the  objection,  for  that  term  applied  only  to  small 
selected  bodies. 

Notwithstanding  numerous  and  various  amendments  were  moved  in 
congress  for  several  successive  sessions,  no  proposition  of  amendment  to 
be  submitted  to  the  states,  at  any  time  received  the  sanction  of  both 
houses. 


CHAPTER  XXYL 


THE    PANAMA    MISSION. 


One  of  the  principal  topics  of  discussion  at  the  session  of  1825-26, 
was  the  "  Panama  Mission,"  so  called  from  the  proposition  to  send  com- 
missioners to  a  congress  of  the  southern  republics  which  was  to  assemble 
at  Panama.  This  subject  was  thus  alluded  to  in  the  annual  message  of 
the  president : 

"  Among  the  measures  which  have  been  suggested  to  them  by  the  new 
relations  with  one  another,  resulting  from  the  recent  changes  of  their 
condition,  is  that  of  assembling  at  the  isthmus  of  Panama,  a  congress, 
at  which  each  of  them  should  be  represented,  to  deliberate  upon  objects 
important  to  the  welfare  of  all.  The  republics  of  Colombia,  of  Mexico, 
and  of  Central  America,  have  already  deputed  plenipotentiaries  to  such 
a  meeting,  and  they  have  invited  the  United  States  to  be  also  represented 
there  by  their  ministers.  The  invitation  has  been  accepted  ;  and  minis- 
ters on  the  part  of  the  United  States  will  be  commissioned  to  attend  at 
those  deliberations,  and  to  take  a  part  in  them,  so  far  as  may  be  compat- 
ible with  that  neutrality,  from  which  it  is  neither  our  intention,  nor  the 
desire  of  the  other  American  states,  that  we  should  depart." 

The  first  suggestion  of  the  proposed  congress  was  ascribed  to  Bolivar, 
a  conspicuous  leader  in  the  South  American  revolution,  and  for  several 
years  president  of  Colombia,  one  of  the  southern  republics  ;  and  who,  in 


THE    PANAMA    MISSION.  353 

1823,  in-vited  Mexico,  Peru,  Chili,  and  Buenos  Ayros  to  send  delegates  to 
Panama,  with  the  design  of  forming  a  confederacy,  for  the  purpose,  as 
was  by  some  alleged,  of  providing  for  a  successful  resistance  to  Spain, 
and  for  giving  security  to  their  independence.  Appreciating  the  interest 
felt  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  for  their  southern  neighbors  in 
their  revolutionary  struggle,  and  the  early  recognition  of  their  independ- 
ence by  our  government,  they  extended  the  invitation  to  the  United 
States.  Verbal  conferences  on  the  subject  had  been  held  with  the  secre- 
tary of  state,  by  the  ministers  of  Mexico,  Colombia,  and  Central 
America,  at  Washington ;  and  in  November,  the  invitation  was  formally 
given  in  letters  to  Mr.  Clay ;  and  several  subjects  were  named  as  being 
deemed  proper  for  the  consideration  of  the  congress. 

In  his  answer  to  the  ministers  of  Mexico  and  Colombia,  Mr.  Clay 
says  :  "  In  your  note,  there  is  not  so  exact  a  compliance  with  the  condi- 
tions on  which  the  president  expressed  his  willingness  that  the  United 
States  should  be  represented  at  Panama,  as  could  have  been  desired.  It 
would  have  been,  perhaps,  better,  if  there  had  been  a  full  understanding 
between  all  the  American  powers  who  may  assemble  by  their  representa- 
tives, of  the  precise  questions  on  which  they  are  to  deliberate ;  and  that 
some  other  matters  respecting  the  powers  of  the  deputies,  and  the  organ- 
ization of  the  congress,  should  bave  been  distinctly  arranged  prior  to  the 
opening  of  its  deliberations.  But  as  the  want  of  the  adjustment  of  these 
preliminaries,  if  it  should  occasion  any  inconvenience,  could  be  only  pro- 
ductive of  some  delay,  the  president  has  determined,  at  once,  to  manifest 
the  sensibility  of  the  United  States,  to  whatever  concerns  the  prosperity 
of  the  American  hemisphere,  and  to  the  friendly  motives  which  have  ac- 
tuated your  government  in 'transmitting  the  invitation  which  you  have 
communicated.  He  has,  therefore,  resolved,  should  the  senate  of  the 
United  States,  now  expected  to  assemble  in  a  few  days,  give  their  advice 
and  consent,  to  send  commissioners  to  the  congress.  Whilst  they  will 
not  be  authorized  to  enter  upon  any  deliberations,  or  to  concur  in  any 
acts  inconsistent  with  the  present  neutral  position  of  the  United  States 
and  its  obligations,  they  will  be  fully  empowered  and  instructed  upon  all 
questions  likely  to  arise  in  the  congress,  on  subjects  in  which  the  nations 
of  America  have  a  common  interest." 

On  the  26th  of  December,  the  president  sent  to  the  senate  a  confi- 
dential message,  stating  some  of  the  reasons  for  accepting  the  invitation, 
and  nominating  Richard  C.  Anderson,  of  Kentucky,  and  John  Sergeant, 
of  Pennsylvania,  as  commissioners,  and  William  B.  Rochester,  of  New 
York,  as  secretary  of  the  mission.  He  again  disclaimed  the  intention 
either  "  to  contract  alliances,  or  to  engage  in  any  undertaking  or  project 
of  hostility  to  any  other  nation."     He  believed  such  a  meeting  would 

23 


354  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

afford  a  favorable  occasion  for  establishing  a  more  liberal  as  well  as  a 
more  stable  commercial  intercourse  than  had  been  enjoyed,  and  principles 
which  should  govern  their  conduct  as  belligerents  and  neutrals  in  time 
of  war.  It  might  also  be  advisable  to  settle  the  question,  whether  the 
security  of  republican  institutions  did  not  require  the  parties  to  prevent 
any  European  power  from  establishing  a  colony  within  the  borders  of  the 
parties — a  principle  announced  by  Mr.  Adams'  predecessor,  and  generally 
known  as  the  "  Monroe  doctrine." 

The  appointment  of  committees  was,  by  a  rule  of  the  senate,  devolved 
upon  the  vice-president,  as  president  of  that  body;  and  in  constituting 
the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  to  whom  the  subject  was  referred, 
Mr.  Calhoun  had  selected  a  majority  of  its  members  from  the  opponents 
of  the  administration. 

The  committee,  on  the  16th  of  January,  reported  adversely  to  the 
proposed  mission.  It  was  called  a  new  and  untried  measure  ;  and  they 
saw  no  cogent  reasons  for  departing  from  the  established  policy  of  the 
government.  The  objects  of  the  congress  should  have  been  more  partic- 
ularly stated  and  defined,  and  the  manner  of  their  accomplishment  more 
distinctly  marked  out.  The  committee  took  exception  to  several  of  the 
subjects  of  discussion  mentioned  by  the  different  ministers,  but  to  which 
the  president  had  made  no  allusion.  Nor  did  they  consider  the  object 
of  establishing  the  principles  of  a  commercial  intercourse  as  justifying 
a  participation  in  the  proposed  congress.  If  the  nations  were  wrong  in 
supposing  that  their  former  commercial  policy  had  been  most  conducive 
to  their  own  interests,  "  the  task  of  exhibiting  their  errors  might  be 
much  better  performed  by  particular  discussions  with  each  separately, 
than  by  general  demonstrations  made  to  all,  assembled  as  a  congress." 
They  also  questioned  the  authority  of  the  government  to  enter  into  any 
negotiation  with  foreign  nations  for  the  purpose  of  settling  or  promul- 
gating, either  principles  of  internal  policy,  or  mere  abstract  propositions, 
as  parts  of  public  law. 

After  an  examination  of  all  the  reasons  for  the  proposed  mission,  and 
the  objects  contemplated  by  it,  the  committee  concluded  their  report 
with  the  resolution,  "  That  it  is  not  expedient,  at  this  time,  for  the 
United  States  to  send  any  ministers  to  the  congress  of  American  nations 
assembled  at  Panama." 

A  debate  immediately  ensued,  in  which  the  resolution  was  supported 
by  Messrs.  Ilayne,  Woodbury,  White,  Van  Buren,  Berrien,  Dickerson, 
Benton,  and  Randolph ;  and  opposed  by  Messrs.  Bobbins,  F.  Johnson, 
Holmes,  and  others.  Many  of  the  speeches  were  of  great  length,  and 
the  debate,  as  a  whole,  has  seldom  been  surpassed  in  point  of  ability,  in 
that  body.     It  was  continued  until  the  14th  of  March,  when  the  resolu- 


THE   PANAMA    MISSION.  355 

tion  was  negatived,  by  a  vote  of  19  to  24.  The  nominations  were  then 
confirmed  by  about  the  same  vote ;  and  the  injunctions  of  secrecy  were 
removed  from  the  journal. 

The  concurrence  of  the  house  of  representatives  being  necessary  in  an 
act  appropriating  the  money  for  carrying  the  mission  into  effect,  the  sub- 
ject was  referred  in  that  body  to  the  committee  of  foreign  relations,  who, 
on  the  25th  of  March,  1825,  made  a  report  in  favor  of  the  mission.  In 
the  opinion  of  the  committee,  the  congress  of  Panama  had  been  impro- 
perly compared  with  that  of  the  allied  sovereigns  of  Europe.  It  was 
neither  a  meeting  of  sovereigns,  nor  a  government  or  branch  of  a  govern- 
ment. It  had,  therefore,  no  legislative  power ;  nor  could  its  members, 
by  their  acts,  bind  each  other,  or  the  governments  which  they  represented. 
They  were  mere  diplomatic  agents,  having  power  only  to  discuss  and  nego- 
tiate, whose  conclusions  were  subject  to  the  ratification  of  some  organic 
body  at  home.  Besides,  it  was  expressly  stipulated  in  the  treaties  be- 
tween these  new  republics,  that  the  meeting  at  Panama  should  "  not 
affect  the  national  sovereignty  of  the  contracting  parties,  in  regard  to 
their  laws,  and  the  establishment  and  form  of  their  respective  govern- 
ments." 

With  respect  to  the  constitutional  objection,  they  perceived  in  the  con- 
stitution no  restriction  on  the  appointment  of  foreign  ministers  by  the 
proper  authority.  The  objection  erroneously  assumed,  that  the  congress 
was  a  government,  or  part  of  a  government,  or  a  confederacy  of  govern- 
ments. The  United  States  therefore  would  not  enter  into  a  confedera- 
tion, or  form  a  union  with  foreign  powers,  by  sending  ministers  to  treat 
with  them. 

The  objection  that  the  subjects  of  discussion,  the  powers  of  the  minis- 
ters, and  the  rules  of  the  congress,  were  not  sufficiently  settled,  was 
deemed  of  little  weight.  The  principal  topics  to  be  discussed  had  been 
stated ;  and  as  the  power  of  the  ministers  was  expressly  restricted  to 
that  of  negotiation  ;  and  as  they  were  to  be  bound  by  no  decision  of  the 
congress  without  their  own  consent,  a  minute  detail  on  the  points  above 
mentioned  was  of  no  great  importance. 

Nor  did  the  committee  think  our  attendance  would  endanger  our 
neutrality.  Having  acknowledged  the  independence  of  the  new  repub- 
lics, we  had  already  established  our  right  to  treat  them  as  free  and 
Independ'ent  states.  They  were  at  war  with  Spain.  The  allies  of  Spain 
were  taking  no  part  in  the  war.  Great  Britain,  the  most  powerful  of 
those  allies,  had  acknowledged  the  independence  of  several  of  these  states, 
and  established  diplomatic  relations  with  them.  These  acts  of  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  not  only  weakened  Spain  as  a  belligerent,  but 
directly  violated  her  colonial  laws ;  yet  she  submitted  to  them.     If,  then, 


356  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

our  recognition  of  the  independence  of  her  revolting  colonies,  and  our 
trading  with  them  in  contravention  of  her  colonial  laws,  was  no  breach 
of  neutrality,  there  could  be  none  in  our  attendance  at  the  proposed 
congress. 

To  the  objection  that  we  might  become  involved  in  an  entangling 
alliance  with  the  new  states,  it  wag  answered,  that  the  project  of  such 
alliance  was  expressly  disclaimed  by  the  president ;  that  the  congress  was 
not  a  government  with  which  we  could  form  an  alliance  ;  that  any  agree- 
ment entered  into  must  be  submitted  to  the  constitutional  ratifying  pow- 
ers at  home ;  and  that  an  entangling  alliance  was  uo  more  likely  to 
result  from  this*  mission  than  from  any  mission  to  any  power.  Indeed, 
an  alliance  might  be  more  easily  formed  with  a  foreign  sovereign,  parti- 
cularly an  absolute  one,  who  was  himself  competent  to  form  an  alliance, 
than  could  be  done  by  our  ministers  to  Panama,  who  would  be  accredited 
to  other  ministers  no  more  competent  than  our  own  to  pledge  their  govr 
ernments.  The  committee  farther  observed,  that  the  new  republics 
being  at  war  with  the  same  enemy,  and  being  in  alliance  with  each  other, 
an  alliance  with  one  of  them  would  be  as  entangling  as  an  alliance  with 
them  all.  Hence,  the  reason  that  would  forbid  our  attending  the  con- 
gress, would  require  us  to  withdraw  our  diplomatic  connection  with  these 
states. 

The  mission  had  been  objected  to  as  novel  and  unprecedented.  Because 
the  establishment  of  several  new  republics  at  once  was  an  unprecedented 
event,  it  did  not  follow  that  their  subsequent  acts  or  ours  should  be  called 
novel  and  unprecedented.  It  was  natural  that  these  states  should  hold 
diplomatic  conferences  with  each  other,  and  with  neighboring  nations  which 
had  important  relations  with  them.  Similar  meetings  of  friendly  states 
had  frequently  been  held.  In  principle,  our  meeting  at  the  congress 
would  not  be  without  precedent.  The  negotiations  in  1782,  which 
resulted  in  the  treaties  of  peace  between  the  United  States,  France,  and 
Great  Britain,  were  of  the  nature  of  the  conferences  of  diplomatic  agents. 
On  the  principle  that  every  act  must  have  an  exact  precedent,  the  most 
important  measures  of  our  government  could  never  have  been  adopted. 

The  proposed  congress  had  been  likened  to  that  of  the  allied  sovereigns 
of  Europe  (the  "  Holy  Alliance").  But  the  pernicious  character  of  the 
European  congress  consisted  not  in  their  assembling  and  treating 
together,  but  in  the  character  of  the  governments  and  the  objects  to  bo 
effected.  The  objections  to  a  congress  of  despotic  powers,  wielding  the 
force  of  large  standing  armies,  and  concerting  measures  for  violent  inter- 
ference in  the  internal  affairs  of  other  states,  and  especially  to  prevent 
the  establishment  of  free  institutions,  did  not  hold  against  a  congress  of 
republics  governed  by  written  laws  and  elective  magistrates. 


THE    PANAMA    MISSION.  357 

Having  considered  the  principal  objections  to  the  measure,  and  en- 
deavored to  show  that  it  was  consistent  with  our  international  policy,  the 
committee  considered  the  subjects  of  discussion,  which,  they  said,  by  the 
terms  of  the  invitation,  as  well  as  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  were  to 
extend  to  all  subjects  of  importance :  (1.)  To  the  new  states,  as  among 
each  other.  (2.)  Or,  as  between  them  and  Spain.  (3.)  Or  of  import- 
ance directly  to  us,  in  our  connection  with  them.  Each  power  might 
propose  for  discussion  or  negotiation  any  subject  it  pleased  ;  except  that 
the  United  States,  as  was  understood,  were  to  engage  in  no  discussion 
inconsistent  with  neutrality. 

The  importance,  to  us,  of  the  relations  of  the  new  states  to  each  other, 
arose  from  their  proximity  to  the  United  States.  One  of  them,  (Mexico,) 
had  an  immense  landed  frontier  on  our  territory,  and,  with  two  others, 
laid  on  those  waters  into  which  the  great  internal  communications  of  the 
United  States  were  discharged.  With  all  of  them  we  had  important 
connections.  Of  the  eight  or  nine  independent  states,  formed  out  of  the 
late  Spanish  and  Portuguese  colonies,  seven,  viz. :  Mexico,  Guatemala, 
Colombia,  the  Provinces  of  La  Plata,  Chili,  Peru,  and  Upper  Peru,  had 
adopted  republican  governments.  It  was  to  us  a  matter  of  interest  how 
these  should  stand  toward  each  other.  Should  they  fall  into  dissensions 
and  wars,  the  great  advantages  we  had  anticipated  from  their  growth 
and  prosperity  would  not  be  realized.  It  would  have  been  as  well  for 
us  and  for  themselves,  that  the  mother  country  had  continued  to  rule 
them,  as  that  their  energies  should  be  wasted  in  civil  wars.  Controver- 
sies arising  from  rival  claims  to  portions  of  territory,  already  existed, 
and  in  on^  instance  had  resulted  in  war.  It  had  already  become  neces- 
sary to  ask  an  additional  appropriation  for  the  naval  service,  of  nearly 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  to  protect  the  lives  and  property  of  our 
citizens  from  the  dangers  to  which,  in  the  progress  of  this  war,  they 
would  be  exposed.  Now,  it  was  expressly  provided  in  the  treaties  which 
led  to  the  formation  of  the  congress  at  Panama,  that  the  ministers  there 
assembled  should  exercise  the  office  of  mediators  when  such  differences 
should  arise.  To  the  work  of  mediation,  the  United  States  would  come 
as  the  most  disinterested  party.  And  if  in  but  a  single  instance  we 
could  avert  or  terminate  a  war,  it  would  itself  form  a  sufficient  motive 
for  accepting  the  invitation. 

Upon  the  subject  of  the  illations  of  the  new  states  with  Spain,  our 
ministers  were  not  only  to  observe  a  strict  neutrality,  but  to  endeavor 
to  effect  a  pacification ;  an  object  to  us  of  vast  importance.  The  revival 
of  our  languishing  commerce  with  Spain,  and  its  profitable  expansion 
with  the  new  states,  could  be  expected  only  from  the  termination  of  the 
present  contest. 


358  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

But  the  most  important  subjects  of  discussion  were  the  direct  inter- 
ests between  the  United  States  and  the  new  republics.  With  some  of 
them  we  had  no  treaties  whatever ;  and  with  Mexico,  none  that  was 
satisfactory.  A  conference  of  the  ministers  of  all  these  new  states 
would  afford  the  best  opportunity  of  establishing  liberal  and  uniform 
relations  with  all.  The  United  States,  the  committee  said,  had  long 
labored  to  introduce  into  public  law  more  liberal  and  equal  principles. 
Our  policy  respecting  the  laws  of  war  and  trade  differed  in  many  points 
from  that  of  Europe  :  and  these  new  republics  now  ask  the  benefit  of 
our  experience  in  the  great  school  of  international  politics.  To  refuse 
our  attendance  when  urged  upon  this  ground,  would  be  to  neglect  the 
fairest  opportunity  ever  afforded  of  diffusing  liberal  doctrines  of  public 
law. 

In  accordance  with  the  views  of  the  committee,  they  recommended  the 
adoption  of  the  following  resolution :  Resolved^  That,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  house,  it  is  expedient  to  appropriate  the  funds  necessary  to 
enable  the  president  of  the  United  States  to  send  ministers  to  the  con- 
gress of  Panama. 

A  bill  providing  for  the  necessary  appropriations  was  on  the  same 
day,  (March  25,)  reported  by  the  committee  of  ways  and  means. 

The  resolution  was  taken  up  in  committee  of  the  whole,  on  the  4th 
of  April.  The  debate  commenced  on  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
M'Lane,  of  Delaware,  proposing  to  instruct  the  ministers  to  attend  the 
congress  in  a  diplomatic  character  merely,  and  forbidding  them  to  dis- 
cuss or  consider  any  proposition  of  alliance  or  compact  which  should 
bind  us  to  resist  interference  from  abroad  with  the  domestic  concerns  of 
the  South  American  governments,  or  should  commit  the  neutral  rights 
of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  any  other  nations  or  states. 

Among  those  who  advocated  the  amendment,  were  Messrs.  M'Lane, 
Wickliffe,  Kives,  Hamilton,  Buchanan,  Hemphill,  Ingham,  Forsyth, 
Archer,  and  Cambreleng ;  all  of  whom  were  opposed  to  the  administra- 
tion. The  amendment  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  Webster,  Everett, 
Livingston,  Buckner,  Fr.  Johnson,  Wurtz,  Thompson,  and  others.  All 
the  gentlemen  last  named  were,  it  is  believed,  friends  of  the  administra- 
tion, except  Mr.  Livingston,  of  Louisiana.  Several  other  amendments 
and  substitutes  were  offered  in  the  course  of  the  debate,  but  they  were 
all  rejected.  Mr.  M 'Lane's  amendment  was  slightly  modified  before  the 
final  vote  was  taken  upon  it. 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  M'Lane  was  opposed  as  being  an  infringement 
on  the  constitutional  duties  of  the  executive.  The  constitution  vests 
the  executive  power  in  the  president ;  and  the  giving  of  instructions  to 
ministers  was  an  exercise  of  executive  power.     The  amendment  virtu- 


THE    PANAMA    MISSION.  359 

ally  prescribed  such  instructions ;  and  its  adoption  would  be  an  unau- 
thorized assumption  of  power. 

The  general  principle  was  also  asserted,  that  the  house  was  bound  to 
carry  treaties  into  effect,  irrespective  of  their  expediency ;  that  the 
question  of  expediency  was  one  which  the  house  was  not  called  upon  to 
decide.  Such  was  the  opinion  of  "Washington,  who,  when  called  on  by 
the  house  for  a  copy  of  the  instructions  to  Mr.  Jay,  who  had  negotiated 
the  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  stated,  as  a  reason  for  refusing  to  comply 
with  the  request,  that  treaties,  "  when  ratified  by  the  president,  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate,  become  obligatory;"  and  "  that 
the  assent  of  the  house  of  representatives  is  not  necessary  to  the  validity 
of  a  treaty."  Congress  was  morally  bound  to  pay  the  salaries  of  the 
officers  of  the  government.  The  appointment  of  ministers,  by  whom 
treaties  were  made,  was  also  given  to  the  president  and  senate;  and  hence 
was  inferred  the  duty  of  the  house,  in  the  present  case,  to  vote  the  sal- 
aries of  the  ministers  who  had  been  constitutionally  appointed. 

The  proposed  restriction  upon  the  ministers  in  relation  to  any  "  pro- 
position of  alliance  or  compact,  binding  the  United  States  to  resist 
interference  from  abroad  with  the  South  American  governments,"  was 
the  subject  of  much  discussion.  It  seems  to  have  been  intended  to 
counteract  the  designs  (if  any  existed)  on  the  part  of  the  executive,  to 
carry  into  effect  the  declaration  of  Mr.  Monroe  against  European  colo- 
nization in  America,  and  against  any  attempts  of  tho  Allied  Powers  to 
extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  continent.  One  object  which 
Mr.  Monroe  had  in  view,  was  to  prevent  the  occupation  of  the  island 
of  Cuba  by  any  other  European  power ;  an  event  then  not  altogether 
improbable,  but  which  might  endanger  the  safety  of  the  United  States. 
The  restriction,  it  was  urged,  would  place  it  out  of  our  power  to  coun- 
teract such  design.  The  president  was  known  to  coincide  in  this  prin- 
ciple of  Mr.  Monroe ;  and  Mr.  Clay,  in  his  general  instructions  to  Mr. 
Poinsett,  our  minister  to  Mexico,  had  requested  him  to  bring  to  the 
notice  of  the  Mexican  government  the  message  of  Mr.  Monroe  to  con- 
gress, in  1823,  in  which  the  declaration  was  made. 

The  advocates  of  the  restriction  would  not  look  with  indifference  on 
an  attempt  by  any  power  to  interfere  with  the  independence  of  these 
republics,  or  to  control  their  right  of  self-government ;  but  they  desired 
to  be  left  free  to  adopt  such  measures  as  might  be  thought  proper  when 
the  crisis  should  arrive.  They  denied  that  the  amendment  contained 
instructions,  either  to  the  president  or  to  the  ministers;  and  therefore 
it  did  not  interfere  with  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  executive.  The 
right  and  the  propriety  of  the  house  to  express  its  opinion  respecting  the 
expediency  of  uniting  in  the  contemplated  congress,  were  asserted  ;  as 


360  THE    AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

also  the  right  to  withhold  appropriations  for  the  mission.  It  was  held 
that  the  constitutional  power  to  do  any  act,  implied  a  discretionary 
power  to  determine  its  expediency.  What  rendered  the  exercise  of  this 
power  peculiarly  proper  in  the  present  instance,  was,  that  the  question 
was  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  house  in  express  terms  by  the 
resolution  of  the  committee. 

The  debate  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  M'Lane  continued  in  committee 
of  the  whole,  until  the  20th  of  April,  when  the  committee  reported  to 
the  house  the  resolution  of  the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  without 
amendment.  Mr.  M'Lane  then  moved,  in  the  house,  the  amendment  he 
had  offered  in  committee,  which,  after  several  ineffectual  motions  to 
amend  it,  was  adopted,  99  to  95.  On  the  next  day,  the  question  was 
taken  on  the  resolution  of  the  committee  on  foreign  relations  as  amended 
on  motion  of  Mr.  M'Lane,  and  decided  in  the  negative :  ayes,  54 ;  noes, 
143. 

The  bill  providing  for  the  expense  of  the  mission  was  then  taken  up 
in  committee  of  the  whole,  slightly  amended,  and  reported  to  the  house. 
Mr.  M'Duffie  moved  to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause,  and  supported  his 
motion  by  a  long,  animated,  and  violent  speech.  The  motion  was  lost, 
61  to  134.  On  the  following  day,  (April  22,)  the  bill  was  passed,  134 
to  60. 

It  is  impossible  from  these  several  votes  to  determine  precisely  the 
sense  of  the  house  upon  the  different  points  embraced  in  the  general 
question.  Some  of  the  friends  of  the  administration  and  of  the  mission 
without  restriction,  had  voted  for  Mr.  M'Lane's  amendment,  regarding 
it  as  not  hostile  to  the  intentions  of  the  president  as  expressed  in  his 
message.  The  next  day,  however,  some  of  them,  considering  the  amend- 
ment an  encroachment  on  tl^e  constitutional  rights  of  the  executive, 
united  with  those  who  were  opposed  to  the  mission  as  wholly  inexpe- 
dient, in  rejecting  the  amended  resolution.  Some  probably  voted  for 
the  bill  appropriating  the  funds,  who,  though  not  friendly  to  the  mission, 
considered  it  the  duty  of  the  house  to  make  the  appropriation  without 
expressing  its  opinion  on  the  expediency  of  the  mission.  Hence  it  is 
not  certain,  either  that  a  majority  of  the  house  was  in  favor  of  the 
mission  unrestricted,  or  of  asserting  a  right  to  give  instructions  in  rela- 
tion to  our  foreign  policy.  The  bill  was  concurred  in  by  the  senate, 
with  but  three  dissenting  votes. 

The  congress,  composed  of  representatives  from  Colombia,  Peru,  Cen- 
tral America,  and  Mexico,  assembled  at  Panama  on  the  22d  of  June, 
1826.  The  United  States  were  not  represented.  Mr.  Anderson,  our 
minister  to  Colombia,  who  had  been  ordered  to  attend  the  congress,  died 
on  the  way ;  and  the  delay  caused  by   the  protracted  discussion  on  the 


CONTROVERSY    WITH    GEORGIA REMOVAL    OF    THE    INDIANS.        361 

subject  of  the  mission,  in  both  houses  of  congress,  prevented  the  attend 
ance  of  Mr.  Sergeant.  Sufficient  time  did  not  remain  after  the  decision 
of  the  house  to  make  the  necessary  preparation  for  his  departure,  and 
to  cross  the  isthmus  in  time  to  avoid  exposure  to  the  sickness  which  pre- 
vailed there  at  a  certain  season  of  the  year. 

The  congress  closed  its  session  the  15th  of  July;  having  concluded 
a  treaty  of  league  and  perpetual  friendship,  in  which  the  states  not  re- 
presented might  join  within  the  year.  The  congress  adjourned  to  meet 
again  in  February,  1827,  at  Tacubaya,  near  the  city  of  Mexico. 

Mr.  Poinsett,  our  minister  to  Mexico,  was  appointed  commissioner 
in  the  place  of  Mr.  Anderson,  deceased ;  and  Mr.  Sergeant,  with  Mr. 
Rochester,  secretary  of  the  mission,  departed  for  Tacubaya  in  Novem- 
ber. The  congress,  however,  did  not  assemble ;  owing,  it  was  said,  to 
the  internal  commotions  in  Colombia,  Peru,  and  Central  America,  which 
had  prevented  the  ratification,  by  their  governments,  of  the  treaties  con- 
cluded at  Panama.  Until  this  should  be  done,  it  was  believed  the  con- 
gress would  not  be  resumed :  and  Messrs.  Sergeant  and  Rochester  re- 
turned the  following  summer. 

Thus  terminated  the  Panama  mission,  which,  though  well  intended, 
and  perhaps  wise  and  proper  if  the  congress  had  been  fully  attended, 
was,  by  the  opponents  of  Mr.  Adams,  turned  to  the  disadvantage  of  his 
administration. 


CHAPTEK  XXYII. 

CONTROVERSY     WITH     GEORGIA,    IN     RELATION     TO    THE    REMOVAL    OF    THE 

INDIANS. 

The  removal  and  settlement  of  the  Indian  tribes  beyond  the  Missis- 
sippi, had  been  repeatedly  made  the  subject  of  executive  recommenda- 
tion. Mr.  Monroe,  in  a  special  message,  March  30,  1824,  called  the 
attention  of  congress  to  the  subject ;  and  again  on  the  27th  of  January, 
1825,  a  few  weeks  before  the  close  of  his  administration.  In  the  latter 
message,  the  president  said  :  "  The  great  object  to  be  accomplished  is, 
the  removal  of  these  tribes  to  the  territory  designated,  on  conditions 
which  shall  be  satisfactory  to  themselves  and  honorable  to  the  United 
States.  This  can  be  done  only  by  conveying  to  each  tribe  a  good  title 
to  an  adequate  portion  of  land  to  which  it  may  consent  to  remove,  and 
by  providing  for  it  there  a  system  of  internal  government,  which  shall 


362  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

protect  their  property  from  invasion,  and,  by  the  regular  progress  of 
improvement  and  civilization,  prevent  that  degeneracy  which  has  gene- 
rally marked  the  transition  from  the  one  to  the  other  state." 

The  four  principal  southern  tribes  were  the  Creeks  located  in  Georgia 
and  Alabama,  and  numbering  about  20,000  ;  the  Cherokees,  in  Georgia, 
Alabama,  and  Tennessee,  9,000;  the  Choctaws,  in  Mississippi  and 
Alabama,  21,000;  and  the  Chickasaws,  in  Mississippi,  3,625.  For  the 
removal  of  the  tribes  within  the  limits  of  Georgia,  the  president  consider- 
ed the  motive  peculiarly  strong,  arising  from  an  existing  compact  with 
that  state. 

Georgia  was  the  only  state  having  large  claims  to  unoccupied  western 
lands,  which  did  not  make  an  early  cession  of  them  to  the  United  States. 
At  length,  by  a  compact  between  the  two  governments,  Georgia  ceded 
to  the  United  States  her  right  and  title  to  all  the  lands  south  of  the 
state  of  Tennessee,  and  west  of  the  Chatahoochie  river,  and  a  line  drawn 
from  the  Uchee  direct  to  the  Nicojack  on  the  Tennessee  river.  In  con- 
sideration of  this  cession,  the  United  States  stipulated  to  pay  the  state 
of  Georgia  $1,250,000,  and  "  to  extinguish  at  their  own  expense,  for  the 
state  of  Georgia,  the  Indian  title  to  the  lands  lying  within  the  limits  of 
that  state,  as  early  as  it  could  be  peaceably  obtained,  and  on  reasonable 
terms." 

The  quantity  of  land  owned  by  the  Creeks  at  that  time  within  the 
state  of  Georgia,  was  estimated  at  1C,578, 890  acres.  By  several  suc- 
cessive treaties,  the  last  of  which  was  held  in  1821,  the  United  States 
had  procured  the  cession  of  14,748,590  acres.  At  the  date  of  the  com- 
pact, the  Cherokees  were  in  possession  of  7,152,110  acres,  of  which 
995,310  acres  had  been  acquired  by  the  general  government  for  Georgia. 
According  to  the  report  of  the  secretary  of  war  accompanying  the  mes- 
sage of  January  27,  1825,  the  Creeks  still  claimed  in  Georgia,  4,245,760 
acres  ;  and  the  Cherokees  5,202,160  acres.  And  the  two  tribes  claimed 
in  Alabama,  5,995,200  acres.  The  Cherokees  claimed  in  Tennessee, 
1,055,680  acres.  The  Choctaws  and  Chickasaws,  claimed  in  Mississippi, 
15,705,000  acres,  and  1,276,976  in  Alabama. 

In  farther  fulfillment  of  the  stipulation  of  the  United  States  to  ex- 
tinguish the  Indian  title  to  lands  in  Georgia,  a  treaty  was  made  Feb- 
ruary 12,  1825,  with  chiefs  of  the  Creek  nation,  by  which  they  ceded  to 
the  United  States  their  lands  in  Georgia,  and  agreed  to  receive  in  ex- 
change for  them  a  like  quantity  west  of  the  Mississippi  on  the  Arkansas 
river,  and  the  sum  of  $400,000  as  a  compensation  for  the  improvements 
made  on  their  lands,  for  their  losses  and  the  inconveniences  attending 
their  removal,  and  for  obtaining  supplies  in  their  new  settlement.  They 
were  to  remove  from  their  lands  in  Georgia  by  the  1st  of  Sept.,  1826. 


CONTROVERSY    WITH    GEORGIA REMOVAL    OF   THE    INriANS.        353 

The  execution  of  this  treaty  by  Gen.  M'Intosh,  one  of  the  principal 
chiefs,  and  a  few  others,  without  the  consent  of  the  representatives  of 
the  Creek  nation,  gave  great  dissatisfaction.  Under  the  policy  adopted 
at  an  early  period,  the  southern  Indians  had  become  in  a  good  measure 
civilized,  and  were  exchanging  their  habits  of  hunting  for  the  pursuits 
of  agriculture.  They  were  therefore  averse  to  any  farther  sales,  and 
had  enacted  the  punishment  of  death  against  any  chief  who  should  sanc- 
tion such  a  measure.  In  accordance  with  this  law,  M'Intosh  and  one 
or  two  other  chiefs  were  summarily  executed  for  this  unauthorized  and 
fraudulent  transaction. 

It  was  this  treaty  that  led  to  the  unhappy  controversy  between  the 
state  of  Georgia  and  the  general  government.  The  Indians  were  deter- 
mined not  to  leave  their  lands  ;  and  the  government  of  Georgia  insisted 
on  the  fulfillment  of  the  treaty.  A  special  meeting  of  the  legislature 
was  called  by  Gov.  Troup,  for  the  purpose,  chiefly,  of  providing  for  the 
survey  and  appropriation  of  the  territory  acquired  from  the  Creeks. 
The  governor,  however,  took  occasion  to  notice  another  subject,  which, 
from  its  supposed  superior  importance,  or  for  other  reasons,  took  pre- 
cedence in  the  deliberations  of  the  legislature.  The  language  and  con- 
duct of  the  governor  and  the  legislature,  and  especially  that  of  the  com- 
mittee to  whom  the  subject  was  referred,  were  generally  regarded  as 
both  ludicrous  and  reprehensible. 

Mr.  King,  a  senator  from  New  York,  had  at  the  preceding  session  of 
congress,  offered  a  resolution  proposing  to  appropriate,  after  the  pay- 
ment of  the  public  debt,  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  to 
aid  in  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  and  the  colonizing  of  free  persons  of 
color,  without  the  limits  of  the  Ujiited  States.  This  resolution  had 
never  been  called  up  by  the  mover,  being  intended,  as  was  supposed, 
merely  for  record  as  his  opinion  on  the  subject  to  which  it  related. 
Similar  propositions  had  been  pressed  upon  the  consideration  of  congress 
by  the  legislatures  of  several  slaveholding  states.  Also  Mr.  Wirt,  of 
Virginia,  attorney-general  of  the  United  States,  had  given  an  official 
opinion,  that  a  law  of  South  Carolina,  authorizing  the  imprisonment  of 
colored  mariners  arriving  there,  was  unconstitutional. 

These  acts  of  Mr.  King  and  Mr.  Wirt,  were  pronounced  by  the  gov- 
ernor in  his  message,  "  officious  and  impertinent  intermeddlings  with 
our  domestic  concerns."  The  doctrine  of  the  attorney-general,  if  sanc- 
tioned by  the  supreme  court,  "  would  make  it  quite  easy  for  congress, 
by  a  short  decree,  to  divest  this  entire  interest,  without  cost  to  them- 
selves of  one  dollar,  or  of  one  acre  of  public  land.  If  the  government 
of  the  United  States,"  said  the  governor,  "  wishes  a  principle  established 
which  it  dare  not  establish  for  itself,  a  cause  is  made  before  the  supreme 


364  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

court ;  and  the  principle  once  settled,  the  act  of  congress  follows  of 
course.  One  movement  of  congress  unresisted  by  you,  and  all  is  lost. 
Temporize  no  longer — make  known  your  resolution,  that  this  subject 
shall  not  be  touched  by  them  but  at  their  peril.  *  *  *  If  this 
matter,  (slavery,)  be  an  evil,  it  is  our  own  ;  if  it  be  a  sin,  we  can  implore 
the  forgiveness  of  it.  To  remove  it,  we  ask  not  either  their  sympathy  or 
assistance.  It  may  be  our  physical  weakness — it  is  our  moral  strength. 
If,  like  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  we  cease  to  be  masters,  we  are  slaves. 
I  entreat  you  most  earnestly,  now  that  it  is  not  too  late,  to  step  forth, 
and,  having  exhausted  the  argument,  to  stand  by  your  arms." 

This  subject  was  referred  to  a  select  committee,  who  presented  to  the 
house  a  report  responding  to  the  feelings  and  sentiments  of  tlie  governor. 
"  The  hour  is  come,"  say  the  committee,  "or  is  rapidly  approaching, 
when  the  states,  from  Virginia  to  Georgia,  from  Missouri  to  Louisiana, 
must  confederate,  and,  as  one  man,  say  to  the  union :  ''  We  will  no 
longer  submit  our  retained  rights  to  the  sniveling  insinuations  of  bad 
men  on  the  floor  of  congress — our  constitutional  rights  to  the  dark  and 
strained  construction  of  designing  men  upon  judicial  benches ;  that  we 
detest  the  doctrine,  and  disclaim  the  principle,  of  unlimited  submission 
to  the  general  government.     *     *     * 

"  Let  our  northern  brethren,  then,  if  there  is  no  peace  in  union,  if 
the  compact  has  become  too-  heavy  to  be  longer  borne,  in  the  name  of  all 
the  mercies,  find  peace  among  themselves.  Let  them  continue  to  rejoice 
in  their  self  righteousness ;  let  them  bask  in  their  own  elysium,  while 
they  depict  all  south  of  the  Potomac  as  a  hideous  reverse.  As  Athens, 
as  Sparta,  as  Rome  was,  we  will  be  :  they  held  slaves ;  we  hold  them. 
Let  the  north  then  form  national  roads  for  themselves ;  let  them  guard 
with  tarifi*s  their  own  interest ;  let  them  deepen  their  public  debt  until 
a  high-minded  aristocracy  shall  arise  out  of  it.  We  want  none  of  all 
those  blessings.  But  in  the  simplicity  of  the  patriarchal  government,  we 
would  still  remain  master  and  servant  under  our  own  vine  and  our  own 
fig  tree,  and  confide  for  safety  upon  Him,  who  of  old  time,  looked  down 
upon  this  state  of  things  without  wrath." 

The  committee  concluded  their  report  with  two  resolutions,  declaring 
their  concurrence  in  the  sentiments  of  the  governor,  and  for  the  support 
of  their  determination  to  "  stand  by  their  arms,"  pledging  their  lives, 
their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honor;  and  requesting  the  governor  to 
forward  copies  of  the  resolutions  to  the  governors  of  the  several  states, 
and  to  their  own  senators  and  representatives  in  congress. 

On  the  next  day,  (June  7,)  another  message  was  communicated,  in 
which  the  governor  again  adverted  to  the  resolutions  of  the  state  legis- 
*atures  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  the  acts  of  the  individuals  before 


CONTROVERSY   WITH   GEORGIA REMOVAL   OF   THE   INDIANS.         365 

mentioned ;  complained  of  the  eflforts  that  had  been  made  to  render 
unavailing  the  guaranties  of  the  constitution ;  and  concluded  thus  : 

"  The  attorney-general,  representing  the  United  States,  says  before 
the  supreme  court,  in  a  ripe  and  splendid  argument,  that  slavery,  being 
inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  God  and  nature,  can  not  exist.  Do  we 
want  more  ?  or  shall  we  wait  until  the  principle  being  decided  against 
us,  the  execution  issues,  and  the  entire  property  is  bought  in  from  the 
proceeds  of  our  public  lands  ?  This  is  left  to  your  decision.  The 
United  States  can  choose  between  our  enmity  and  our  love;  and  when 
you  offer  them  the  choice,  you  perform  the  last  and  holiest  of  duties. 
They  have  adopted  a  conceit ;  and  if  they  love  that  more  than  they  love 
us,  they  will  cling  to  it  and  throw  us  off;  but  it  will  be  written  in  your 
history,  that  you  did  not  separate  from  the  household  without  adopting 
the  fraternal  language :  choose  ye  this  day  between  our  friendship  and 
that  worthless  idol  you  have  set  up  and  worshiped." 

The  object  of  Gov.  Troup  in  his  endeavors  to  excite  apprehensions  at 
the  south  of  a  meditated  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  general  government, 
to  divest  them  of  their  slave  property,  and  to  produce  insurrections,  the 
reader  is  left  to  conjecture. 

But  to  return  to  the  subject  of  the  Indian  difficulties.  The  attempt, 
by  Georgia,  to  survey  the  Indian  territory,  was  resisted  by  the  Creeks ; 
and  the  president  ordered  the  projected  survey  to  be  abandoned,  until 
the  time  prescribed  by  the  treaty  for  their  removal.  And  Gen.  Gaines, 
who  had  been  ordered  to  the  scene  of  the  disturbances,  and  required  to  quell 
them  by  force,  if  necessary,  or,  in  the  event  of  hostilities  having  sub- 
sided, to  make  peace  upon  just  principles,  and  prevent  farther  acts  of 
retaliation  or  violence,  informed  Gov.  Troup  in  a  letter,  (June  14,)  that 
he  was  authorized  to  state  to  the  Indians,'  that  the  president  had 
required  a  postponement  of  the  survey.  The  governor  promptly  replied, 
that  the  laws  of  Georgia  were  already  extended  over  the  ceded  country, 
and,  of  course,  that  it  was  his  duty  to  execute  them;  and  that  the 
statutory  provisions  on  the  subject  would  be  found  in  the  late  act  "  to 
dispose  of  and  distribute  the  lands  lately  acquired  from  the  Creek 
nation." 

Gen.  Gaines  had  been  requested  (June  13)  to  inform  the  government, 
without  delay,  of  Gov.  Troup's  desire  that  the  line  between  G  eorgia  and 
Alabama  should  be  run  as  early  as  possible.  The  latter  declared  his 
intention  immediately  to  apprise  the  governor  of  Alabama  to  run  the 
line  between  the  two  states,  and  ask  his  consent  and  cooperation  ;  and 
said:  "  If  that  consent  and  cooperation  be  refused,  we  will  proceed  to 
run  the  line  without  them ;  as  we  will  also  proceed,  in  due  time,  to 
make  the  survey  of  the  lands  within  our  limits,  disregarding  any  obsta- 


366  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

cles  which  may  be  opposed  from  any  quarter."  He  said  the  government 
had  issued  its  order  upon  false  information  of  its  agent,  (Col.  Crowell,) 
and  thus  reiterated  his  determination  :  "  It  is  for  you,  therefore,  to  bring 
it  to  the  issue ;  it  is  for  me  only  to  repeat,  that,  cost  what  it  will,  the  line  will 
be  run,  and  the  survey  executed.  The  government  of  Georgia  will  not 
retire  from  the  position  it  occupies  to  gratify  the  agent  of  the  hostile 
Indians ;  nor  will  it  do  so,  I  trust,  because  it  knows  that,  in  conse- 
quence of  disobedience  to  an  unlawful  mandate,  it  may  be  very  soon 
recorded,  that  'Georgia  was.'  " 

A  few  days  after.  Gov.  Troup  received  a  letter  from  the  war  depart- 
ment, dated  June  15,  1825,  saying,  if  the  government  of  Georgia  should 
undertake  the  project  of  surveying  the  lands  ceded  to  the  United  States 
by  the  Creeks  in  the  treaty  of  the  Indian  Springs,  before  the  expiration 
of  the  time  specified  for  the  removal  of  the  Indians,  it  would  be  wholly 
upon  its  own  responsibility;  and  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  would  not,  in  any  manner,  be  responsible  for  any  consequences 
which  might  result  from  that  measure. 

In  his  reply  of  June  25,  the  governor  said  :  "  If  it  is  intended  that 
the  government  of  the  United  States  will  interpose  its  power  to  prevent 
the  survey,  or  if  only  it  means,  that  omitting  its  constitutional  duty  it 
will  not  pacify  the  Indians,  and  make  safe  the  frontier,  while  the  officers 
of  Georgia  are  in  peaceful  fulfillment  of  their  instructions,  *  *  *  in 
either  event,  the  president  may  rest  content  that  the  government  of  Geor- 
gia cares  for  no  responsibilities  in  the  exercise  of  its  right,  and  the  exe- 
cution of  its  trust,  but  those  which  belong  to  conscience  and  to  God,  who, 
thanks  to  him,  is  equally  our  God  as  the  God  of  the  United  States." 
For  the  right  of  making  the  survey  before  the  time  at  which  the  Indians 
were  to  give  up  the  possession,  the  governor  relied  on  the  consent  ob- 
tained from  the  party  that  executed  the  treaty. 

Gen.  Gaines,  on  the  10th  of  July,  1825,  informed  Gov.  Troup  that 
the  chiefs  of  both  parties  had  assured  him  that  they  would  remain  at 
peace  with  each  other,  and  in  no  case  injure  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States ;  there  would,  therefore,  be  no  occasion  for  calling  into  service 
any  of  the  military  force  of  that  state.-  And  in  this  letter  the  general 
inclosed  the  certificate  of  William  Edwards  and  Joseph  Marshall,  (the 
latter  an  interpreter  of  the  council  of  chiefs  of  the  M'Intosh  party,) 
stating,  that,  in  answer  to  the  request  for  permission  to  survey  the 
land,  M'Intosh  had  said  he  could  not  grant  it,  but  would  call  the  chiefs 
together,  and  lay  it  before  them,  which  was  never  done.  The  governor, 
in  proof  of  his  having  obtained  guch  consent,  referred  to  a  letter  of 
Gen.  M'Intosh,  saying  :  "  If  the  general  government  and  the  agent  of 
the  Creek  nation,  with  the  party  he  influences  make  no  objection  or  op- 


CONTROVERSY    WITH    GEORGIA REMOVAL    OF    THE    INDIANS.         367 

position  to  running  or  surveying  the  land,  myself  and  the  chiefs  and  the 
Indians  who  were  in  favor  of  the  treaty,  do  not  object — we  give  our 
consent." 

But  admitting  the  treaty  to  have  been  lawfully  executed,  and  the 
alleged  consent  to  have  been  fully  given,  it  was  held  that  such  consent 
could  not  confer  the  right  claimed  by  Georgia.  The  sovereignty  of  the 
soil  was  ceded  to  the  United  States :  therefore  Georgia  could  not  law- 
fully bargain  with  the  chiefs  for  the  right  of  survey,  without  the  assent 
of  the  United  States.  Nor  could  the  general  government  itself  grant 
the  right  in  question,  before  the  expiration  of  the  period  within  which 
the  removal  was  to  take  place ;  until  which  time,  the  United  States  were 
bound  to  protect  the  Indians  "  against  the  encroachments,  hostilities, 
and  impositions  of  the  whites  and  all  others." 

Gen.  Gaines,  who  had  met  the  chiefs  of  the  M'Intosh  party,  and  after- 
ward, at  Broken  Arrow,  the  hostile  party,  with  a  view  to  the  adjustment 
of  differences,  as  before  mentioned,  had  found,  as  he  said,  the  reputed 
hostile  party  to  consist  of  all  the  principal  chiefs,  and  forty-nine  fiftieths 
of  the  whole  of  the  chiefs,  head  men  and  warriors  of  the  nation,  and 
considered  them  as  in  fact  the  Creek  nation,  and  altogether  free  of  the 
spirit  of  hostility  ascribed  to  them.  They  objected  to  the  treaty,  alleg- 
ing that  it  was  fraudulent,  entered  into  contrary  to  the  law  and  will  of 
the  nation,  and  by  persons  not  authorized  to  treat,  and  refused  to  acqui- 
esce in  it. 

These  facts  and  allegations  having  been  communicated  to  the  govern- 
ment, Mr.  Barbour,  secretary  of  war,  under  date  of  July  21,  informed 
Gov.  Troup  that  they  were  considered  as  presenting  a  question  beyond  the 
cognizance  of  the  executive,  and  would  be  referred  to  congress ;  and  that 
the  faith  of  the  United  States  being  pledged  to  protect  the  Indians  from 
encroachment  till  the  time  of  their  removal,  the  president  had  directed 
him  "  to  state  distinctly  to  his  excellency,  that,  for  tlie  present,  he  will 
not  permit  the  survey  to  be  made."  Mr.  Barbour  also  informed  Geu. 
Gaines  of  the  president's  determination,  and  intimated  the  possibility 
of  "  a  collision,  by  overt  acts,  between  the  executive  of  the  union  and 
that  of  a  state,"  however  "  repugnant  to  the  feelings  of  the  president;" 
adding :  "  If  Gov.  Troup  shall  persevere  in  his  declared  purpose  of 
surveying  the  land  against  the  repeated  remonstrances  of  the  department, 
it  will  present  one  of  the  most  unfortunate  events  which  have  yet  occur- 
red in  our  history." 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  state,  that  Col.  Crowell,  against  whom,  as 
Indian  agent  of  the  government,  certain  charges  had  been  preferred  by 
Gov.  Troup,  and  whose  agency  had  been  suspended  until  an  examination 
could  be  had,  was  acquitted,  and  restored  to  the  duties  of  his  agency. 


368  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

In  the  course  of  the  correspondence  between  Gen.  Gaines  and  Gov. 
Troup,  some  altercation  took  place.  The  ill-natured  letters  of  the  gov- 
ernor drew  from  the  general  a  reply  marked  more  strongly  with  sarcasm 
and  invective,  than  with  the  qualities  which  usually  distinguish  diplo- 
matic communications.  This  letter,  dated  duly  28,  and  addressed  to  the 
governor  through  the  Georgia  Journal,  was  followed  by  a  note  to  the 
general,  (August  6,)  directing  him  to  forbear  farther  intercourse  with 
the  government  of  Georgia,  and  informing  him  that  his  conduct  would 
be  represented  to  the  president. 

A  long  letter,  (August  7,)  was  accordingly  addressed  to  the  president, 
animadverting  upon  the  conduct  and  correspondence  of  Gen.  Gaines, 
and  preferring  an  extraordinary  accusation,  in  the  most  exceptionable 
language,  against  the  president  himself.  After  having  charged  Gen. 
Gaines  with  "  indiscretion,  intemperance,  deliberate  disrespect,  and  the 
outrage  of  all  decency,"  he  adds  :  "  The  general  is  correct  in  one  of  his 
positions;  and,  being  in  the  right  himself,  he  puts  you  in  the  wrong,  and 
so  conspicuously,  that  you  stand  on  the  insulated  eminence^  an  almost 
solitary  advocate  for  making  and  breaking  treaties.'''' 

Gen.  Gaines  was  accused,  among  other  things,  of  having  used  his  influ- 
ence against  Gov.  Troup,  who  was  a  candidate  for  reelection.  Associat- 
ing with  the  general  for  crimination  other  representatives  of  the  govern- 
ment, he  repeats  the  charge  of  "  a  most  insulting  interference  with  our 
local  politics,"  and  imputes  to  them  "  arrogance,  self-sufficiency  and  a 
haughty  and  contemptuous  carriage  toward  all  the  constituted  authori- 
ties of  the  state;"  adding  as  follows  :  "  Now,  sir,  suffer  me  in  conclu- 
sion to  ask  if  these  things  have  been  done  in  virtue  of  your  instructions, 
expressed  or  implied,  or  by  authority  of  any  warrant  from  you  what- 
soever ;  and  if  not  so,  whether  you  will  sanction  and  adopt  them  as  your 
own,  and  thus  hold  yourself  responsible  to  the  government  of  Georgia.'^ 

On  receiving  the  letter  from  the  department  of  July  2 1 ,  declaring  so 
decidedly  the  intention  of  the  president  to  prevent  intrusions  upon  the 
Indian  territory,  and  to  refer  the  treaty  to  congress,  the  governor  con- 
cluded to  defer  the  execution  of  his  purpose.  In  his  answer,  (August 
15,)  he  says :  "  Until  the  will  of  the  legislature  of  Georgia  is  expressed, 
no  measures  will  be  taken  to  execute  the  survey.  The  executive  of 
Georgia  has  no  authority,  in  the  civil  war  with  which  the  state  is 
menaced,  to  strike  the  first  blow,  nor  has  it  the  inclination  to  provoke 
it."  He  still  insisted,  however,  on  the  right  to  make  the  survey,  pro- 
tested against  the  reference  of  the  treaty  to  congress,  and  concluded  by 
saying  :  "  The  legislature  of  Georgia  will,  on  its  first  meeting,  be  advised . 
to  resist  any  efi'ort  which  may  be  made  to  wrest  from  the  state  the  terri- 
tory acquired  by  that  treaty,  and  no  matter  by  what  authority  that  effort 


CONTROVERSY  WITH  GEORGIA REMOVAL  OF  THE  INDIANS.  369 

be  made.  *  *  #  Q^.  right  not  asserted  now,  is  lost  forever.  If 
the  legislature  shall  fail  to  vindicate  that  right,  the  responsibility  will 
be  theirs,  not  mine." 

Gen.  Gaines  having  continued  his  personal  and  caustic  letters  to  the 
governor,  the  latter  (August  31)  demanded  of  the  president  the  arrest 
and  trial  of  the  general  according  to  the  articles  of  war.  The  president 
(Sept.  19)  informed  Gen.  Gaines  of  this  demand,  and  of  his  decision  not 
to  accede  to  it;  but  expressed  his  disapprobation  of  the  writing  and  pub- 
lishing of  the  letters,  and  enjoined  him,  "  in  his  future  official  inter- 
course with  Gov.  Troup,  to  abstain  from  every  thing  which  may  be 
deemed  offensive;"  adding,  that  he  regarded  the  previous  charges  against 
him  by  Gov.  Troup,  and  the  publicity  given  to  them,  as  affording  a  pal- 
liation of  his  conduct ;  without  which,  he  (the  president)  would  have 
considered  it  his  duty  to  yield  to  the  demand.  This  decision  was  also 
communicated  to  Gov.  Troup,  with  a  copy  of  the  letter  to  Gen.  Gaines. 

The  interest  awakened  by  this  controversy  was  not  confined  to  this 
country.  The  belligerent  attitude  of  Georgia  toward  the  general  gov- 
ernment, was  a  prominent  topic  of  newspaper  remark  abroad,  and  gained 
for  that  state  and  its  valorous  executive  a  wide  notoriety.  Apprehen- 
sions of  a  civil  war  were  seriously  entertained  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  and  a  rupture  of  the  union  was  regarded  as  among  the  prob- 
able consequences.  Our  government  was  considered  too  weak  to  endure, 
answering  well  enough  for  a  small  community,  but  inadequate  to  the 
wants  of  a  great  and  growing  nation.  A  state,  thwarted  in  its  interests 
by  the  measures  of  the  general  government,  naturally  looked  to  separa- 
tion as  the  remedy.  More  correct  opinions,  however,  generally  pre- 
vailed even  among  foreigners.  No  serious  alarm  was  extensively  felt  in 
this  country ;  how  much  soever  the  injury  inflicted  by  this  affair  upon 
our  national  character  abroad  was  to  be  regretted. 

The  executive,  having  endeavored  in  vain  to  obtain  the  acquiescence 
of  the  Creeks  to  the  treaty,  and  anxious  to  effect  an  amicable  settlement 
of  the  controversy,  succeeded,  after  much  effort,  in  making  a  new  treaty, 
(January  '24,  1826,)  which  was  satisfactory  to  the  Indians,  and  by  which 
was  obtained,  with  the  exception  of  only  a  small  quantity,  all  their  land 
lying  within  the  state  of  Georgia.  The  treaty  was  negotiated  at  Wash- 
ington by  James  Barbour,  secretary  of  war,  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  and  a  delegation  of  Indians  duly  authorized  by  the  Creek  nation. 

On  the  31st  of  January,  it  was  submitted  to  the  senate  for  ratifica- 
tion. At  the  suggestion  of  the  Georgia  senators,  and  with  the  view  of 
securing  to  that  state  the  whole  of  the  Creek  lands  lying  within  the 
same,  a  new  negotiation  was  entered  into,  and  a  supplementary  article 
agreed  on,  extending  two  of  the  lines  limiting  the  former  cession,  by 

24 


370  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

which  the  desired  object  would  probably  be  attained  ;  depending  on  the 
establishment  of  the  line  to  be  run  between  Ge6rgia  and  Alabama.  The 
additional  article  was  communicated  to  the  senate  the  31st  of  March; 
and,  on  the  22d  of  April,  the  treaty  thus  amended,  having  been  duly 
ratified,  was  proclaimed  by  the  president. 

In  the  house,  the  bill  "  making  appropriations  to  carry  the  treaty  into 
effect,"  met  with  violent  opposition  from  the  Georgia  members,  who  re- 
corded their  protest,  asserting  the  validity  of  the  former  treaty,  denying 
the  right  of  the  president  and  senate,  without  the  consent  of  Georgia,  to 
invalidate  the  right  which  that  treaty  secured  to  her ;  and  they  objected 
to  the  new  treaty  that  it  did  not,  by  an  express  provision,  cede  all  the 
lands  of  the  Creeks  in  that  state,  nor  require  their  removal  before  Jan- 
uary, 1827.     The  bill  was  passed  May  9,  1826,  by  167  yeas  to  10  nays. 

But  the  controversy  was  not  yet  settled.  Unwilling  to  submit  to  the 
terms  of  the  new  treaty,  Gov.  Troup  (July  24)  ordered  the  surveys  to 
be  commenced  the  first  of  September,  1826.  The  commissioners  ap- 
pointed to  establish  the  boundaries  between  Georgia  and  Alabama  having 
been  unable  to  agree,  the  Georgia  commissioners  proceeded  alone  to  run 
the  line. 

In  January,  1827,  complaints  reached  the  department,  that  the  Georgia 
surveyors  had  passed  the  line  established  by  the  treaty,  and  were  survey- 
ing lands  not  ceded.  The  fact  was  communicated  by  the  president  to 
congress,  February  5,  with  the  information  that  he  had  ordered  prosecu- 
tions against  the  intruders  for  the  penalties  incurred ;  and  that  if  acts 
of  encroachment  were  not  discontinued,  the  military  force  would  be  em- 
ployed to  aid  in  executing  the  laws.  The  subject  was  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee in  each  house.  The  senate  committee  concluded  their  report  re- 
commending a  resolution,  requesting  the  president  "  to  continue  his  exer- 
tions to  obtain  from  the  Creek  Indians  the  relinquishment  of  any  claim 
to  lands  within  the  limits  of  Georgia." 

The  committee  of  the  house,  at  the  close  of  a  long  report  recapitulating 
the  facts  relating  to  the  controversy,  recommend  the  adoption  of  two  re- 
solutions :  (1.)  "  That  it  is  expedient  to  procure  a  cession  of  the  Indian 
lands  in  the  state  of  Georgia."  (2.)  "  That,  until  such  a  cession  is  pro- 
cured, the  law  of  the  land,  as  set  forth  in  the  treaty  of  Washington, 
ought  to  be  maintained  by  all  necessary,  constitutional,  and  legal  means." 
This  report  was  made  on  the  last  day  of  the  session ;  and  there  was  con-^ 
sequently  no  time  for  a  full  discussion  of  the  resolutions.  Mr.  Drayton, 
of  South  Carolina,  offered  a  series  of  resolutions,  declaring  that  Georgia 
possessed  the  right  to  the  soil  occupied  by  the  Creeks ;  the  right  herself 
to  extinguish  the  title  to  the  same,  and  to  legislate  for  the  Indians ;  the 
right  to  survey  the  land  ;  and  that  the  treaty  of  the  Indian  Springs  was 


CONTROVERSY   WITH    GEORGIA. REMOVAL    OF    THE    INDIANS.        371 

valid.  No  other  action  on  the  subject  was  taken,  except  ordering  6,000 
copies  of  the  report  and  accompanying  documents  to  be  printed. 

Assurances  that  efforts  would  continue  to  be  made  by  the  president  to 
obtain  from  the  Indians  a  relinquishment  of  the  small  remainder  of  their 
unceded  lands  in  Georgia,  and  that  the  opening  of  fresh  negotiations  had 
been  prevented  by  the  delay  in  fixing  the  dividing  line  between  Georgia 
and  Alabama,  seem  in  a  measure  to  have  repressed,  for  a  time,  the  hostile 
feelings  of  Gov.  Troup  toward  the  executive.  But  on  his  being  officially 
apprised  of  the  president's  determination,  expressed  in  his  message  to 
congress  on  the  5th  of  February,  to  employ  force,  if  necessary,  in  ex- 
ecuting the  laws,  his  hostility  revived ;  and,  in  a  letter  to  the  department, 
February  17,  declares  his  purpose  "  to  resist,  to  the  utmost,  any  military 
attack  from  the  government  of  the  United  States,"  and  that  measures 
for  such  resistance  were  in  progress.  "  From  the  first  decisive  act  of  hos- 
tility," says  the  letter,  "  you  will  be  considered  and  treated  as  a  public 
enemy,  and  with  the  less  repugnance,  because  you,  to  whom  we  might 
constitutionally  have  appealed  for  our  own  defense  against  invasion,  are 
yourselves  the  invaders ;  and  what  is  more,  the  unblushing  allies  of  the 
ravages,  whose  cause  you  have  adopted." 

On  the  same  day,  the  attorney  and  solicitors  general  of  the  state  were 
•)rdered  to  take  the  proper  measures  to  effect  the  liberation  of  any,  sur- 
veyors that  had  been  or  might  be  arrested,  by  any  civil  process,  under 
the  authority  of  the  general  government,  and  to  bring  to  justice  the 
persons  concerned  in  such  arrestation.  Major-generals  were  also  re- 
quired to  issue  orders  to  hold  in  readiness  their  regiments  and  battalions 
to  repel  any  hostile  invasion  of  the  territory  of  the  state. 

Measures  of  resistance,  however,  appear  to  have  been  suddenly  ar- 
rested. A  few  days  after  the  governor's  defiatory  letter  to  the  secretary 
of  war,  he  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Georgia  delegation  in  congress,  ex- 
pressing his  pleasure  on  having  just  learned,  that,  since  the  communica- 
tion of  the  secretary  of  war  of  the  29th  of  January,  informing  him  of 
the  intended  employment  of  force  to  expel  the  surveyors,  the  president 
had  taken  measures  to  procure  the  residue  of  the  Indian  lands.  The 
letter  bears  indications  of  having  been  written  with  subdued  feelings.  It 
says  :  "  You  are  at  liberty  to  state  to  the  councils  before  whom  you 
represent  the  interests  and  rights  of  this  state,  that  the  governor  of 
Georgia  has  never  entertained  the  idea  of  resorting  to  military  force  to 
counteract  measures  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  but  on 
the  occasion  where  it  was  deemed  better  in  honor,  in  conscience,  and  in 
duty,  to  sacrifice  every  thing  we  hold  dear,  than  unresistingly  to  submit." 

The  governor  was  not  pleased  with  the  reference  of  the  question  to 
the  supreme  court.     He  said  :  "  It  will  be  for  the  government  of  Georgia 


372  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ultimately  to  submit,  or  not,  to  tlie  decision  of  that  tribunal."  He  did 
not  consider  the  supreme  court  the  constitutional  arbiter  in  controversies 
involving  rights  of  sovereignty  between  a  state  and  the  United  States. 
He  complained  of  the  wrong,  cruelly  inflicted,  of  having  been  charged 
with  seeking  a  dissolution  of  the  union,  and  concluded  with  the  hope  of 
success  to  the  contemplated  negotiation,  and  an  amicable  adjustment  of 
difficulties,  wishing  them  to  "  make  use  of  this  disclosure  and  explana- 
tion" in  endeavoring  to  promote  the  peace  and  harmony  which  ought 
always  to  subsist  between  the  states  and  the  United  States,  in  which  he 
assures  them  none  can  feel  deeper  concern  than  himself  The  controversy 
was  at  length  concluded,  about  the  first  of  January,  1828,  by  a  treaty  for 
the  purchase  of  their  remaining  strip  of  land  in  Georgia. 

The  policy  recommended  in  the  message  of  Monroe  to  which  we  have 
alluded,  of  effecting  the  removal  of  the  Indian  tribes  beyond  the  Missis- 
sippi, seems  not  to  have  been  lost  sight  of  by  the  succeeding  administra- 
tion. In  compliance  with  a  request  from  the  committee  on  Indian  affairs, 
Mr.  Barbour,  the  secretary  of  war,  on  the  3d  of  February,  1826,  trans- 
mitted to  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  the  project  of  "  a  bill  for  the 
preservation  and  civilization  of  the  Indian  tribes  within  the  United 
States,"  with  a  report  elucidating  its  purposes.  The  secretary  in  this 
adn^rable  report,  deplores  their  threatened  extinction ;  recognizes  their 
appeals  to  our  compassion  ;  and  recommends  the  adoption  of  a  just  and 
humane  policy  as  due  alike  to  the  Indians  and  to  the  character  of  our 
nation.  The  following  paragraphs  from  this  report  will  be  read  with 
interest : 

"  It  is  the  province  of  history  to  commit  to  its  pages  the  transactions 
of  nations.  Posterity  look  to  this  depository  with  intense  interest.  The 
fair  fame  of  their  ancestors,  a  most  precious  inheritage,  is  to  them  equally 
a  source  of  pride,  and  a  motive  of  continued  good  actions.  But  she  per- 
forms her  province  with  impartiality.  The  authority  she  exercises  in 
the  absence  of  others,  is  a  check  on  bad  rule.  The  tyrant  and  the 
oppressor  see,  in  the  character  of  their  prototypes,  the  sentence  posterity 
is  preparing  for  them.  Which  side  of  the  picture  shall  we  elect  ?  for  the 
decision  is  left  to  ourselves.  Shall  her  record  transmit  the  present  race 
to  future  generations,  as  standing  by,  insensible  to  the  progress  of  the 
desolation  which  threatens  the  remnant  of  this  people  ?  or,  shall  these 
unfriendly  characters  give  place  to  a  generous  effort  which  shall  have 
been  made  to  save  them  from  destruction  ?  While  deliberating  on  this 
solemn  question,  I  would  appeal  to  that  high  Providence,  whose  delight 
is  justice  and  mercy,  and  take  counsel  from  the  oracles  of  his  will,  revealed 
to  man,  in  his  terrible  denunciations  against  the  oppressor. 

"  In  reviewing  the  past,  justice  requires  that  the  humane  attempts  of 


CONTROVERSY   WITH    GEORGIA REMOVAL    OP   THE   INDIANS.        373 

the  federal  government,  coeval  with  its  origin,  should  receive  an  honor- 
able notice.  That  they  have  essentially  failed,  the  sad  experience  of 
every  day  but  too  strongly  testifies.  If  the  original  plan,  conceived  in  a 
spirit  of  benevolence,  had  not  been  fated  to  encounter  that  as  yet  una- 
bated desire  to  bereave  them  of  their  lands,  it  would,  perhaps,  have  real- 
ized much  of  the  hopes  of  its  friends.  So  long,  however,  as  that  desire 
continues  to  direct  our  councils,  every  attempt  must  fail.  A  cursory 
review  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  show  the  incongruity  of  the  measures 
we  have  pursued,  and  the  cause  of  their  failure. 

"  Missionaries  are  sent  among  them  to  enlighten  their  minds,  by 
imbuing  them  with  religious  impressions.  Schools  have  been  established 
by  the  aid  of  private  as  well  as  public  donations,  for  the  instruction  of 
their  youths.  They  have  been  persuaded  to  abandon  the  chase — to 
locate  themselves,  and  become  cultivators  of  the  soil.  Implements  of 
husbandry  and  domestic  animals  have  been  presented  them,  and  all 
these  things  have  been  done,  accompanied  with  professions  of  a 
disinterested  solicitude  for  their  happiness.  Yielding  to  these  tempta- 
tions, some  of  them  have  reclaimed  the  forest,  planted  their  orchards, 
and  erected  houses,  not  only  for  their  abode,  but  for  the  administra- 
tion of  justice,  and  for  religious  worship.  And  when  they  have  so 
done,  you  send  .your  agent  to  tell  them  they  must  surrender  their 
country  to  the  white  man,  and  recommit  themselves  to  some  new  desert, 
and  substitute,  as  the  means  of  their  subsistence,  the  precarious  chaso 
for  the  certainty  of  cultivation.  The  love  of  our  native  land  is  implanted 
in  every  human  bosom,  whether  he  roams  the  wilderness  or  is  found  in 
the  highest  state  of  civilization.  This  attachment  increases  with  the 
comforts  of  our  country,  and  is  strongest  when  these  comforts  are  the 
fruits  of  our  own  exertions.  We  have  imparted  this  feeling  to  many  of 
the  tribes  by  our  own  measures.  Can  it  bo  matter  of  surprise  that  they 
hear,  with  unmixed  indignation,  of  what  seems  to  them  our  ruthless  pur- 
pose of  expelling  them  from  their  country  thus  endeared  ?  They  see  that 
our  professions  are  insincere  ;  that  our  promises  have  been  broken  ;  that 
the  happiness  of  the  Indian  is  a  cheap  sacrifice  to  the  acquisition  of  new 
lands ;  and  when  attempted  to  be  soothed  by  an  assurance  that  the 
country  to  which  we  propose  to  send  them  is  desirable,  they  emphatically 
ask  us :  '  What  new  pledges  can  you  give  us  that  we  shall  not  again  be 
exiled  when  it  is  your  wish  to  possess  these  lands  ?'  It  is  easier  to  state 
than  to  answer  this  question.  A  regard  to  consistency,  apart  from  every 
other  consideration,  requires  a  change  of  measures.  Either  let  him 
retain  and  enjoy  his  home,  or,  if  he  is  to  be  driven  from  it,  abstain  from 
cherishing  illusions  we  mean  to  disappoint,  and  thereby  make  him  to  feel 
more  sensibly  the  extent  of  his  loss." 


374  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  bill  prepared  by  the  secretary  provided,  (1.)  A  country  to  be 
procured  west  of  the  Mississippi,  and  beyond  the  states  and  territories, 
for  their  future  and  permanent  residence ;  the  right  to  the  soil  and  pro- 
tection against  the  intrusion  of  white  settlers  to  be  guarantied  to  them. 
(2.)  Their  removal  by  individuals,  or  by  portions  of  tribes,  if  the  whole 
tribes  were  unwilling  to  remove.  (3.)  Establishing  and  maintaining  a 
territorial  government  by  the  United  States  for  their  protection  and 
civilization.  (4.)  If  circumstances  should  ultimately  justify  it,  the 
extinction  of  tribes  and  their  amalgamation  into  one  mass,  and  a  distri- 
bution of  property  among  the  individuals,  instead  of  its  being  held  in 
common  by  a  tribe.  (5.)  The  condition  of  those  that  remain  to  be  left 
unaltered. 

No  definitive  action,  however,  was  had  upon  this  bill ;  nor  was  any 
proposition  for  the  removal  of  the  Indian  tribes  adopted  during  the 
administration  of  Mr.  Adams. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

RUSSIAN     AND    BRITISH    CLAIMS    ON    THE     PACIFIC    COAST. OCCUPATION    OP 

COLUMBIA    RIVER. PUBLISHING    THE    LAU^S. 

Portions  of  the  coast  on  the  Pacific  ocean,  north  of  the  42d  degree 
of  north  latitude,  were  claimed  by  the  United  States,  Russia  and  Great 
Britain.  But  prior  to  the  treaty  of  the  5th  of  April,  1824,  between  the 
United  States  and  Russia,  the  territorial  boundaries  of  neither  of  the 
claimants  had  been  established. 

By  a  resolution  of  the  house  of  representatives,  February  16,  1822, 
the  president  was  requested  "  to  communicate  to  the  house,  whether  any 
foreign  government  had  claimed  any  part  of  the  territory  of  the  United 
States  on  the  coast  of  the  Pacific  ocean,  north  of  the  42d  degree  of  lati- 
tude, and  whether  any  regulations  had  been  made  by  any  foreign  powers 
afi'ecting  the  trade  on  that  coast,"  &c.  In  compliance  with  this  resolu- 
tion, the  president,  on  the  15th  of  April,  communicated  the  correspond- 
ence between  our  government  and  the  governments  of  Russia  and  Great 
Britain. 

Pierre  de  Poletica,  Russian  minister  at  Washington,  on  the  11th  of 
February,  1822,  had  transmitted  to  Mr.  Adams,  secretary  of  state,  a 
printed  copy  of  a  regulation  adopted  by  the  Russian  American  company, 
and  sanctioned  by  the  emperor.  This  regulation  interdicted  the  approach 
of  all  vessels  except  Russian,  within  one  hundred  Italian  miles  of  the 


RUSSIAN   AND    BRITISH    CLAIMS    ON    THE    PACIFIC    COAST.  375 

shore  of  any  territory  claimed  by  that  government,  and  assumed  a  right 
to  the  territory  as  far  south  as  the  51st  degree  of  north  latitude.  This 
territorial  claim,  as  well  as  the  right  to  exclude  our  vessels  from  the 
shore  beyond  the  ordinary  distance  to  which  territorial  jurisdiction 
extends,  our  government  was  unwilling  to  concede. 

Mr.  Adams,  in  reply,  said  it  had  been  expected  that  the  boundary 
would  have  been  arranged  by  treaty.  And  he  asked  explanations  of  the 
grounds  of  such  claim  and  regulations,  upon  principles  generally  recog- 
nized by  the  laws  and  usages  of  nations. 

It  was  answered,  that  Russia  based  her  territorial  claims  upon  dis- 
coveries ;  the  first  of  which  was  dated  back  to  the  time  of  the  emperor, 
Peter  I.  Captain  Behring  made  his  first  voyage  of  discovery  in  1728. 
In  his  second  expedition,  1741,  discoveries  were  made  as  far  south  as 
the  49th  degree  of  north  latitude ;  and  establishments  were  soon  after 
formed  by  Russians  along  the  coast.  In  1799,  the  emperor,  Paul  I, 
granted  to  the  Russian  American  company  their  first  charter,  which  gave 
them  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  coast  from  the  55th  degree  to  Beh- 
ring's  strait,  and  permitted  them  to  extend  their  discoveries  south,  and 
to  form  establishments,  provided  they  did  not  encroach  upon  territory 
occupied  by  other  powers. 

The  treaty  by  which  Spain  ceded  the  Floridas,  and  certain  territory 
west  of  the  Mississippi,  gave  to  the  United  States  all  that  belonged  to 
Spain  north  of  the  42d  degree,  but  did  not  define  the  northern  boundary. 
From  the  foregoing  facts  it  appeared,  that  the  rights  of  Russia  speci- 
fied in  the  regulations  of  the  Russian  American  company,  rested  on  the 
three  bases  required  by  the  general  law  and  usage  of  nations:  (1.)  The 
first  discovery.  (2.)  First  occupation.  (3.)  Peaceable  and  undisputed 
possession  for  more  than  fifty  years.  As  Spain  never  had  a  title  to  ter- 
ritory beyond  the  line  assigned  for  the  limits  of  the  Russian  possessions, 
and  as  the  United  States  had  no  other  title  than  that  acquired  by  the 
treaty  of  the  22d  of  February,  1819,  above  mentioned,  the  establishment 
of  this  line  could  not  interfere  with  the  just  claims  of  the  United  States. 
The  51st  degree  had  been  selected,  as  being  the  mean  point  between  the 
Russian  establishment  at  New  Archangel,  under  the  57th  degree,  and 
the  American  colony  at  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  under  the 
46th  degree. 

The  prohibition  of  foreign  vessels  for  so  great  a  distance,  was  but  a 
measure  of  prevention,  and  was  directed  against  foreign  adventurers  who 
were  not  content  with  exercising  an  illicit  trade  on  the  coast,  injurious 
to  the  rights  of  the  Russian  American  company,  but  furnished  arms  and 
ammunition  to  the  natives,  exciting  them  likewise  to  resistance  and  re- 
volt against  the  authorities  in  the  Russian  possessions.     A  majority  of 


376  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

these  adventurers  had  been  American  citizens.  Possessing  territory 
also  on  the  Asiatic  side  of  the  Pacific  from  the  strait  to  the  45th  degree 
of  north  latitude,  Russia  might  exercise  the  rights  of  sovereignty  over 
the  whole  sea,  north  of  the  51st  degree  ! 

Mr.  x\dams  dissented  from  the  principle  upon  which  Russia  had  ex- 
tended her  claim  to  the  51st  degree,  viz.,  that  it  was  equidistant  from 
New  Archangel  and  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river.  Since  the  limits 
prescribed  by  the  emperor  Paul  to  the  Russian  American  company  were 
fixed  at  the  55th  degree,  no  settlement  had  been  made  justifiying  any 
claim  to  territory  south  of  that  point.  New  Archangel,  it  was  said,  too, 
was  not  situated  on  the  continent,  but  was  a  small  settlement  upon  a 
small  island,  in  latitude  57.  With  regard  to  the  prohibition  upon  foreign 
vessels,  Mr.  A.  said  the  vessels  of  the  United  States,  had,  during  our 
existence  as  an  independent  nation,  freely  navigated  those  seas,  and  the 
right  to  navigate  them  was  a  part  of  that  independence.  Respecting 
the  absurd  suggestion  that  Russia  might  have  made  a  close  sea  of  the 
Pacific  because  she  claims  territory  on  both  shores,  he  thought  it  suflS.- 
cient  to  say,  that  the  distance  from  shore  to  shore  in  latitude  51,  was 
4j000  miles!  Nor  could  the  United  States  admit  the  justice  of  the 
reason  assigned  for  the  prohibition.  The  right  of  our  citizens  to  trade 
with  the  aboriginal  natives  beyond  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  other 
nations,  even  in  arms  and  munitions  of  war,  was  as  clear  and  indisput- 
able as  that  of  navigating  the  seas.  And  if  any  well  founded  charge  had 
ever  been  made  against  our  citizens  for  a  violation  of  that  right,  it 
would  have  received  the  most  pointed  attention  of  the  government. 

The  Russian  minister,  in  reply,  adduced  new  arguments  to  establish 
the  claims  of  his  government  to  the  51st  degree.  The  great  extent  of 
the  ocean  did  not  invalidate  the  right  to  make  it  a  close  sea.  The  im- 
perial government,  however,  had  never  taken  advantage  of  that  right. 
As  to  the  right  claimed  for  our  citizens  of  trading  with  the  natives  with- 
out the  limits  of  Russian  jurisdiction,  his  government  did  not  think  of 
limiting  it;  but  if  it  should  be  extended  beyond  the  51st  degree,  it 
would  meet  with  difficulties  for  which  the  American  owners  must  accuse 
their  own  imprudence ! 

The  negotiation,  at  the  request  of  the  imperial  government,  was  sub- 
sequently transferred  to  St.  Petersburgh,  where  a  treaty  was  concluded 
the  5th  of  April,  1824,  by  our  minister,  Henry  Middleton,  and  Count 
Nesselrode.  By  this  treaty,  the  boundary  line  was  established  at  54 
degrees  40  minutes  north  latitude.  The  citizens  of  the  United  States 
were  not  to  resort  to  any  point  where  there  was  a  Russian  establishment 
without  permission  of  the  governor  or  commander :  and  the  subjects  of 
Russia  were  under  similar  restrictions  as  to  American  establishments. 


OCCUPATION    OF    COLUMBIA    RIVER.  377 

And  for  the  term  of  ten  years,  the  vessels  of  both  parties  were  to  have  free 
admission  into  the  interior  seas,  gulfs,  harbors,  and  creeks  upon  the 
coast,  for  the  purposes  of  fishing  and  trading  with  the  natives. 

Mr.  Monroe,  in  his  annual  message  to  congress,  December  7,  1824, 
recommended  the  establishment  of  a  military  post  at  or  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Columbia  river,  to  prot'ect  our  increased  and  increasing  fisheries 
on  the  Pacific.  A  bill  for  this  purpose  was  accordingly  introduced  into 
the  house,  with  an  additional  provision,  directing  the  president  to  open 
a  port  of  entry  in  the  territory,  and  empowering  him  to  appoint  a  gov- 
ernor, judges  and  other  officers  for  the  territory.  These  provisions 
were,  however,  struck  out  of  the  bill.  The  establishment  of  a  territorial 
government  was  considered  premature;  and  the  opening  of  a  port  of 
entry,  and  the  consequent  demand  of  duties  from  British  traders,  would 
interfere  with  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  by  which  a  free  and  open 
trade  was  guarantied  to  both  powers  for  a  certain  term  of  years.  This 
gave  rise  to  a  discussion,  in  congress,  of  the  claims  of  Great  Britain  on 
the  north-west  coast. 

It  was  held  that  Great  Britain  had  no  just  claim  to  any  part  of  the 
territory.  Spanish  navigators  had  first  discovered  the  coast  as  far  as 
the  58th  degree  of  north  latitude.  The  claim  of  Spain,  founded  on  first 
discovery,  became  ours  by  the  treaty  of  the  22d  of  April,  1819.  We 
had  claimed  the  country  before  the  war  of  1812,  as  had  also  Russia  and 
England.  But  their  titles  were  mere  pretenses.  Our  government  had 
sent  out  Lewis  and  Clark  to  explore  the  country ;  and  soon  after,  our 
fur  traders  took  possession  near  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  or  Oregon 
river,  and  in  1810  built  there  the  little  town  called  Astoria.  After  the 
commencement  of  the  war,  the  British  traders,  aided  by  the  Indians, 
drove  our  traders  from  the  country,  and  held  it  until  the  treaty  of 
Ghent,  when,  according  to  the  stipulation  of  that  treaty,  it  was  restored. 
Possession  was  taken  by  Mr.  Prevost,  agent  of  the  United  States,  who 
also  took  possession  of  the  British  post  near  the  bay ;  the  English  set- 
tlers, however,  protesting  against  our  right  to  take  it. 

Immediately  after  the  departure  of  Mr.  Prevost,  the  British  flag  was 
again  hoisted,  and  the  country  occupied  as  British  territory.  This  oc- 
curred a  few  days  before  the  treaty  of  London  was  signed,  Oct.  20,  1818. 
By  the  provisions  of  that  treaty,  the  territory  claimed  by  either  party, 
within  its  waters,  was  to  be  free  and  open,  for  ten  years,  to  the  vessels, 
citizens  and  subjects  of  the  two  powers;  but  the  treaty  was  not  to  be 
construed  to  the  prejudice  of  the  claim  of  either  party. 

The  establishment  of  a  military  post  to  occupy  the  country,  was  urged 
as  necessary  to  enable  us  to  preserve  our  claim.  At  the  end  of  ten 
years.  Great  Britain  might  insist  on  the  parties  being  put  back  to  their 


378  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

former  condition  ;  and  althougli  holding  by  wrong,  yet  being  in  actual 
possession,  when  the  treaty  was  concluded,  she  might  represent  our  rights 
during  the  joint  occupancy  as  a  mere  lease;  and  neglecting  to  reoccupy 
the  country,  we  should  lose  an  important  advantage  in  hereafter  treating 
to  reclaim  it.  Great  commercial  advantages,  too,  it  was  believed,  would 
be  gained  by  the  occupation  of  the  country.  It  would  enable  us  to  com- 
mand the  trade  of  China,  and  other  parts  of  eastern  Asia,  and  the  north 
Pacific.  A  military  post  at  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  with 
trading  houses  in  the  territory,  would  command  the  fur  trade ;  and  the 
fur  trade  and  traders  would  command  the  Indians,  and  be  the  surest 
means  of  preserving  peace  with  them. 

Fears  had  been  expressed  that  our  confederacy  might  become  too 
widely  extended.  Although  the  federative  system  was  well  adapted  for 
the  government  of  an  extensive  nation,  there  were  limits  which  it  would 
not  be  safe  to  pass.  Our  system  might  properly  include  all  who  had  a 
mutual  interest  in  being  united.  To  carry  it  farther,  would  weaken  the 
bond  of  union,  and  endanger  the  confederacy.  But  what  might  be  the 
fate  of  the  federation  if  extended  beyond  the  Stony  Mountains,  or  what 
might  be  the  condition  of  the  people  of  Oregon  centuries  hence,  was  not 
a  matter  of  immediate  concern.  Posterity  would  know  how  to  take  care 
of  itself,  and  to  provide  for  its  own  dangers. 

To  induce  the  settlement  of  the  Oregon  territory,  a  section  had  been 
inserted  in  the  bill,  granting  land  to  the  settlers.  This  section  was 
struck  out,  and  the  bill,  (Dec.  23,)  passed  the  house,  113  to  57.  In 
the  senate,  the  bill  was  taken  up  for  consideration  on  the  25th  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1825,  and,  without  a  discussion  of  its  merits,  laid  on  the  table 
until  the  next  day,  when  the  consideration  was  resumed.  It  was  sup- 
ported by  Mr.  Barbour,  in  a  short  speech,  which  was  followed  by  one 
of  greater  length  from  Mr.  Dickerson, 

Upon  the  question  of  the  title  of  the  United  States  to  the  territory 
proposed  to  be  settled,  the  speakers  did  not  essentially  differ.  Mr. 
Barbour  said,  the  very  full  exposition  of  our  claim  given  by  the  Ameri- 
can plenipotentiary  to  the  court  of  St.  James,  (Mr.  Bush,)  left  but  little 
for  him  to  add  on  this  point.  By  a  comparison  of  that  state  paper  with 
the  counter  statement  of  the  representative  of  that  court,  the  claim  of 
Great  Britain,  as  to  the  territory  on  the  Oregon,  was  without  founda- 
tion. He  believed  we  had  in  the  spirit  of  friendship  and  forbearance, 
made  a  sacrifice  to  Bussia  of  five  degrees  of  our  just  claim,  and  in  the 
same  spirit  had  been  willing  to  make  an  equal  sacrifice  to  Great  Britain ; 
and  he  hoped  she  would  close  with  the  terms  proposed.  The  United 
States  could  yield  no  farther :  consequently,  our  claim  must  be  held  as 
unquestionable  many  degrees  to  the  north  of  the  proposed  settlement. 


OCCUPATION    OP    COLUMBIA   RIVER.  379 

Mr.  Barbour,  recurring  to  the  pretensions  of  the  European  nations  to 
portions  of  this  territory,  said,  Spain,  under  whom  we  claimed,  had 
unquestionably  the  undivided  credit  of  first  discovery,  and  so  far  the 
best  title ;  to  which  she  superadded  the  grant  of  the  head  of  the  Christian 
world,  in  the  person  of  the  Pope  :  and  however  ridiculous  the  latter 
might  now  seem,  it  was  at  that  time  respected  by  the  civilized  world.  But 
this  respect  had  yielded  eventually  to  cupidity;  and  the  other  nations  of 
Europe  had  proceeded  to  appropriate  such  portions  as  accident  or  cir- 
cumstances enabled  them  to  do,  in  opposition  to  the  claims  and  the 
protests  of  Spain. 

In  favor  of  the  proposed  establishment,  Mr.  B.  mentioned  its  obvious 
advantage  to  our  navigating  interest  in  time  of  peace.  It  would  furnish 
a  friendly  asylum  for  our  vessels  in  an  otherwise  strange,  distant,  and 
perhaps  hostile  region.  It  would  also  be  valuable  as  a  depot  for  inter- 
nal commerce,  and  highly  advantageous  in  the  event  of  war. 

With  reference  to  the  apprehended  dangers  of  an  undue  extension  of 
our  empire,  Mr.  Barbour  said  :  "  Fifty  years  ago,  and  the  valley  of  the 
Mississippi  was  like  the  present  condition  of  the  country  of  the  Oregon. 
It  is  now  teeming  with  a  mighty  population — a  free  and  happy  people. 
Their  march  onward  to  the  country  of  the  setting  sun,  is  irresistible.  I 
will  not  disguise,  that  I  look  with  the  deepest  anxiety  on  this  vast  exten- 
sion of  our  empire,  and  to  its  possible  effects  on  our  political  institutions. 
Whatever  they  may  be,  however,  our  forefathers  decided  the  experiment 
should  be  made.  *  *  *  Quj.  advance  in  political  science  has  already 
cancelled  the  dogmas  of  theory.  We  have  already  ascertained,  by  the 
happy  combination  of  a  national  and  state  governments,  but  above  all,  by 
a  wise  arrangement  of  the  representative  system,  that  republics  are  not 
necessarily  limited  to  a  small  territory ;  and  that  a  government,  thus 
arranged,  produces  not  only  more  happiness,  but  more  stability  and  more 
energy,  than  those  the  most  arbitrary.  Whether  it  is  capable  of  indefi- 
nite extent,  must  be  left  to  posterity  to  decide.  But  in  the  most  unfa- 
vorable result,  a  division,  by  necessity,  from  its  unwieldy  extent — an 
event,  I  would  devoutly  hope,  afar  off — we  even  then  can  console  our- 
selves with  the  reflection,  that  all  the  parts  of  the  great  whole  will  have 
been  peopled  by  our  kindred,  carrying  with  them  the  same  language, 
habits,  and  unextinguishable  devotion  to  liberty  and  republican  institu- 
tions." 

Mr.  Dickerson,  in  opposition  to  the  bill,  said,  that  our  having  acquired 
this  territory,  and  the  march  of  population  being  toward  that  region, 
imposed  upon  congress  no  obligation  to  provide  for  its  occupation  or 
population,  unless  the  interests  of  the  United  States  should  require  it. 
As  yet,  we  had  extended  our  laws  to  territories  only  that  were  to  become 


380  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

states  of  the  union,     Oregon  could  never  become  one  of  the  United 
States. 

The  bill  was  opposed  also  as  being  inconsistent  with  our  treaty  with 
Great  Britain,  by  which  any  portion  of  the  country  claimed  by  either 
party,  should,  with  its  harbors  and  other  navigable  waters,  be  free  and  open 
to  the  vessels  and  citizens  of  the  two  powers.  Although  we  thought  our 
claim  incontestible  to  the  49th  degree,  Great  Britain  had  already  ex- 
tended her  settlements  to  the  Columbia  river,  and  had  set  up  a  pretense 
of  claim  to  the  territory  north  of  the  Columbia  to  its  mouth.  It  was  not 
for  congress  to  ascertain  or  limit  the  extent  of  the  claim.  The  treaty 
recognized  a  claim  to  some  undefined  part  of  the  territory;  and  until  after 
its  expiration  in  1828,  it  would  be  improper  to  take  possession  of  this  terri- 
tory by  military  force,  or  to  establish  a  port  of  entry,  as  was  proposed 
by  the  bill. 

The  president — so  the  bill  provided — was  to  cause  a  fort  to  be  erected 
on  either  the  left  or  the  right  bank  of  the  river,  as  he  should  deem  expedi- 
ent, and  to  cause  the  Indian  title  to  be  extinguished  to  a  tract  of  land 
thirty  miles  square,  or  900  square  miles,  including  the  fort.  This  tract 
ought  to  include  both  banks  of  the  river,  and  a  considerable  portion  of 
territory  claimed  by  the  British  government.  As  yet,  that  government 
had  done  nothing  to  contravene  the  provisions  of  the  treaty;  but  would 
they  quietly  see  us  take  possession  of  the  country,  erect  fortifications, 
purchase  the  Indian  title  to  a  large  tract  of  land,  and  establish  ports  of 
entry  ?  The  joint  occupation  was  intended  to  prevent  disputes ;  but  the 
measure  proposed  would  lead  to  immediate  collisions.  If  we  were  enti- 
tled to  the  whole  of  the  territory,  let  all  peaceable  means  be  employed 
to  obtain  our  rights,  before  we  attempted  to  enforce  them  by  military 
occupation.  If  the  two  governments  would  make  a  perpetual  treaty,  to 
take  no  farther  possession  of  that  territory  than  might  be  necessary  for 
trading  with  Indians,  they  would  do  more  for  the  cause  of  humanity 
than  had  been  done  in  the  present  age. 

Nor  did  he,  (Mr.  D.,)  think  the  measure  was  required  at  this  time  for 
the  protection  of  our  shipping  and  our  commerce.  He  contended  that 
neither  as  a  colony  nor  as  a  state,  could  that  country  be  of  any  essential 
benefit  to  the  union ;  he  therefore  thought  it  inexpedient  to  adopt  any 
measure  for  its  occupation  and  settlement.  He  repeated  the  declaration, 
that  Oregon  would  never  become  a  member  of  the  union  ;  and  he  under- 
took to  show  the  difficulty  if  not  the  impossibility  of  obtaining  from  it 
a  representation  in  congress. 

Estimating  the  distance  from  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river  to 
Washington  at  4,650  miles,  a  member  of  congress  from  the  state  of  Ore- 
gon must  travel,  going  to  and  returning  from  the  seat  of  government, 


PUBLISHING    THE   LAWS.  381 

9,300  miles.  Supposing  him  to  travel  at  the  rate  of  30  miles  per  day, 
and  allowing  for  Sundays,  350  days  of  the  year  would  be  required  to  go 
and  return.  This  would  allow  him  a  fortnight  to  rest  himself  at  Wash- 
ington before  commencing  his  journey  home.  Asa  considerable  part  of 
the  way  was  over  rugged  mountains,  covered  the  greater  portion  of  the 
year  with  a  great  depth  of  snow,  he  thought  traveling  at  the  rate  of  30 
miles  per  day  a  hard  duty.  Yet  a  young,  able-bodied  senator  might 
travel  from  Oregon  to  Washington  and  back,  once  a  year ;  but  he  could 
do  nothing  else.  He  might  come  more  expeditiously,  however,  by  water 
round  Cape  Horn,  or  through  Behring's  Strait,  round  the  north  coast  of 
this  continent  to  Baffin's  Bay,  thence  through  Davis's  Strait  to  the  At- 
lantic, and  so  on  to  Washington.  It  was  true,  he  said,  this  passage  had 
not  yet  been  discovered,  except  on  our  maps  ;  but  it  would  be  as  soon  as 
Oregon  would  be  a  state. 

Mr.  Dickerson  concluded  by  moving  that  the  bill  be  laid  on  the  table; 
and  the  motion  was  carried:  ayes,  19  ;  noes,  17. 

On  the  1st  of  February,  1827,  a  resolution  was  offered  by  Mr.  Saun- 
ders, of  North  Carolina,  calling  upon  the  secretary  of  state  for  a  list 
of  the  newspapers  in  which  the  laws  were  directed  to  be  published 
during  the  years  1825,  1826,  and  1827,  designating  the  changes  which 
had  been  made,  and  stating  the  reasons  for  each  change.  This  resolu- 
tion gave  rise  to  a  debate,  marked  no  less  distinctly  by  its  party  char- 
acter, than  by  the  acrimonious  feeling  of  members.  It  was  intended  as 
an  animadversion  upon  the  conduct  of  the  secretary  of  state,  who,  it 
was  alleged,  had,  from  personal  and  political  motives,  made  certain 
changes  in  newspapers  selected  to  publish  the  laws  and  public  adver- 
tisements. 

This  exercise  of  the  power  of  patronage  was  broadly  reprobated  by 
the  advocates  of  the  resolution.  It  was  calculated  to  control  the  free- 
dom of  the  press,  and  to  enlist  that  powerful  instrument  in  the  service 
of  the  administration.  In  the  distribution  of  the  public  printing,  the 
rule  should  be  to  retain  an  individual  as  printer  of  the  laws,  when  his 
employment  was  desired  by  upright  men  of  republican  principles,  and 
when  there  were  no  other  reasons  than  those  of  a  personal  or  political 
nature  for  taking  it  from  him.  So  to  apply  the  patronage  of  the  gov- 
ernment as  to  harmonize  eighty-two  presses  in  praising  every  act  of  the 
administration,  and  to  punish  them  with  the  loss  of  patronage  if  they 
dared  censure  its  measures,  was  to  form  2b  government  press ^  which  was 
more  alarming  to  the  liberties  of  the  people,  than  the  organization  of  the 
whole  of  our  standing  army  formed  into  a  guard  of  the  palace. 

The  resolution  was  opposed  as  useless,  so  far  as  regarded  the  papers 
employed  in  1825  and  1826;  information  for  these  years  and  for  1824 


382  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

having  been  communicated  to  the  house  last  year.  A  call  for  the  rea- 
sons which  influenced  a  public  officer  in  the  discharge  of  a  duty  assigned 
him  by  law,  was  believed  to  be  without  precedent  in  the  annals  of  legis- 
lation. The  act  of  1820  required  the  secretary  to  cause  laws  and 
treaties  to  be  published  in  newspapers,  not  exceeding  three  in  each  state 
and  territory,  and  one  in  the  District  of  Columbia;  leaving  it  to  his 
discretion  to  employ  one  paper  to-day  and  another  to-morrow.  The 
power,  if  abused,  could  be  taken  from  the  secretary,  and  bestowed  upon 
some  other  person  or  persons.  But  the  call  for  his  motives  was  impro- 
per and  unjust.  With  equal  propriety  might  the  president,  or  all  the 
heads  of  departments,  be  called  on  for  the  Causes  or  reasons  for  their 
acts,  or  the  mover  of  the  resolution  for  the  reasons  which  prompted  him 
to  offer  it. 

It  was  held  to  be  proper  for  the  secretary  to  employ  his  friends  rather 
than  his  enemies.  Mr.  Jefferson  had  acted  on  this  principle.  He  had 
removed  faithful  public  officers  on  purely  political  grounds  ;  and,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  Haven,  against  the  wishes  of  a  large 
majority  of  the  people  of  the  district,  as  expressed  in  a  memorial  to  the 
president.  The  present  administration  had  not  carried  the  principle  so 
far  as  had  been  done  by  Mr.  Jefferson.  Of  the  eighty  or  more  papers, 
only  sixteen  had  been  changed.  Of  these  changes,  a  number  were 
known  to  have  been  made  from  geographical  considerations  ;  and  in  four 
instances,  the  persons  displaced  and  those  appointed  were  of  the  same 
political  party.  And  there  might  be  other  changes  which  had  been 
made  from  necessity. 

The  debate  on  this  subject  was  continued  until  the  26th  of  February, 
w^hen  it  was  abruptly  terminated ;  a  few  days  only  of  the  session 
remaining,  and  the  press  of  business  not  permitting  a  farther  discus- 
sion of  the  resolution.  If  the  reader  will  bear  in  mind  the  sentiments 
of  the  parties  to  this  discussion,  he  will  soon  see  how  easily  the  opinions 
of  men  and  parties  axe  changed  by  a  reverse  of  circumstances. 


CHAPTER   XXIX. 

WEST    INDIA    TRADE. NAVIGATION    OF    THE    ST.    LAWRENCE. 

The  illiberal  commercial  policy  of  Gi-reat  Britain  established  by  her 
numerous  navigation  acts,  has  been  the  subject  of  remark  in  preceding 
chapters.  Although  by  the  conventions  (treaties)  of  1815  and  1818, 
reciprocity  of  commerce  had  been  established  between  the  United  States 


WEST   INDIA    TRADE.  383 

and  the  territories  of  Great  Britain  in  Europe,  for  a  period  of  ten  yeara 
from  the  last  mentioned  date,  the  exclusion  of  our  vessels  from  her 
colonies  was  continued.  Hence  an  act  was  passed  by  congress  in  April, 
1818,  closing  our  ports  against  British  vessels  arriving  from  any  port 
or  place  in  any  British  territory  to  which  our  vessels  were  not  admitted. 

But  as  the  ports  of  those  American  colonies  which  had  occasionally, 
from  interest  or  necessity,  been  opened  to  our  vessels,  were  not  consid- 
ered as  included  in  the  act  of  1818,  an  act  was  passed  in  May,  1820, 
extendiDg  the  interdiction  to  all  her  American  colonies.  This  measure 
was  not  without  effect.  The  West  India  colonies  had  been  supplied 
with  our  products  through  the  British  North  American  colonies,  into 
which  they  were  admitted,  and  thence  carried  in  British  vessels.  But 
the  closing  of  this  channel  of  trade,  through  which  the  \Yest  India  col-, 
onies  had  obtained  supplies  of  lumber  and  provisions,  operated  with 
severity  upon  these  colonies.  Memorials  were  addressed  to  parliament 
respecting  their  distress ;  and  Great  Britain  was  induced  to  relax  her 
rigorous  policy. 

On  being  informed  that  parliament  was  about  to  open  the  colonial 
ports  to  our  vessels,  congress  passed  an  act  the  6th  of  May,  1822,  in 
anticipation ;  authorizing  the  president,  on  satisfactory  evidence  being 
given  him  that  those  ports  had  been  thus  opened,  to  proclaim  the  ports 
of  the  United  States  opened  to  British  vessels  employed  in  this  trade, 
under  such  reciprocal  rules  and  regulations  as  he  might,  by  such  procla- 
mation, make  and  publish.  In  June,  the  anticipated  act  of  parliament 
was  passed,  by  which  certain  enumerated  ports  were  opened  to  vessels 
of  the  United  States ;  and,  in  conformity  to  the  act  of  the  6th  of  May, 
the  president,  on  the  24th  of  August,  issued  his  proclamation,  declaring 
the  ports  of  the  United  States  open  to  British  vessels  coming  from  those 
ports  in  the  British  West  India  and  North  American  colonies,  with  the 
productions  of  these  colonies. 

As  that  provision  of  the  act  of  May,  1822,  which  gave  the  president 
authority  to  issue  his  proclamation,  was  to  continue  in  force  only  till  the 
expiration  of  the  next  session  of  congress,  an  act  was  passed  the  1st  of 
March,  1823,  Continuing  the  discriminating  duties  on  imposts  and  ton- 
nage, but  authorizing  the  president,  by  proclamation,  to  remove  them  on 
satisfactory  proof  being  given  him,  that  no  higher  duties  were  imposed 
on  our  vessels  and  merchandise  than  on  those  coming  from  other  places. 
The  proof  required  by  the  act  not  having  been  communicated  to  the 
president,  no  proclamation  was  issued.  The  tonnage  upon  British  ves- 
sels was  one  dollar  per  ton ;  upon  American  vessels,  six  cents,  making 
the  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  latter,  ninety-four  cents.  Great 
Britain  then,  by  an  order  in   council,  issued  June  17,  1823,  imposed  a 


384  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

retaliatory  discriminating  tonnage  duty  of  equal  amount,  ninety-four 
cents  per  ton. 

The  administration  was  charged  with  having  needlessly  and  unjustly 
provoked  Great  Britain  to  this  act  of  retaliation,  which,  its  opponents 
said,  might  and  ought  to  have  been  prevented  by  the  removal  of  our  dis- 
criminating duty.  "We  had  therefore  no  reason  to  complain  of  having 
been  met  with  a  duty  equal  to  our  own.  To  this  it  was  replied,  that  the 
duty  upon  British  vessels  was  more  than  counterbalanced  by  restrictions 
and  disadvantages  imposed  upon  our  trade  with  the  colonies  prior  to  the 
enactment  of  this  additional  burden.  It  was  also  claimed,  on  our  part, 
that  American  goods  as  well  as  the  vessels  conveying  them,  should  be 
admitted  into  the  colonies  on  the  same  terms  as  those  of  GJ-reat  Britain : 
and  the  act  of  1823  had  accordingly  adopted  this  principle.  Great 
Britain,  considering  her  colonies  as  integral  parts  of  her  empire,  insisted 
that  she  should  not  be  required  to  exact  duties  ^n  goods  carried  from 
one  British  port  to  another. 

In  the  hope  of  effecting  an  amicable  arrangement  by  treaty,  a  nego- 
tiation was  opened  by  our  government  through  our  minister  at  London. 
But  during  a  suspension  of  the  negotiation,  which,  however,  it  was 
mutually  understood,  was  to  be  speedily  resumed,  other  acts  of  parlia- 
ment were  passed,  in  June  and  July,  1825,  again  opening  certain  colo- 
nial ports  upon  new  terms  and  conditions ;  but  providing  that  these 
ports  should  be  closed  against  any  nation  which  should  not  accept  these 
terms.  Our  government  did  not  accept  them,  for  the  reasons,  as  was 
alleged,  that  those  acts  had  never  been  officially  communicated ;  that 
they  were  so  obscure  as  not  to  be  understood,  having  received  different 
constructions  by  the  British  officers  in  the  different  colonies  ;  and  that 
pledges  having  been  given  to  resume  negotiation,  it  was  deemed  expe- 
dient to  await  the  result  of  that  negotiation,  rather  than  to  subscribe 
implicitly  to  terms  the  import  of  which  was  not  clear,  and  which  the 
British  authorities  themselves  in  this  hemisphere  were  not  prepared  to 
explain. 

Immediately  after  the  close  of  the  session  of  congress  in  May,  1826, 
Albert  Gallatin  was  despatched  as  minister  to  London,  in  the  hope  of 
effecting  a  satisfactory  arrangement.  Notwithstanding  Great  Britain 
herself  had  requested  the  appointment  of  an  additional  minister — Mr. 
King  being  unable,  from  ill  health,  to  conduct  the  negotiation — two 
days  after  Mr.  Gallatin's  arrival,  and  before  his  credentials  had  been 
presented,  an  order  in  council  was  issued  cutting  off  all  negotiation,  and 
prohibiting  all  intercourse  with  her  West  India  colonies  from  the  first 
day  of  December  following. 

To  countervail  this  rigorous  measure,  bills  similar  in  their  provisions 


WEST    INDIA    TRADE.  385 

were  introduced  in  both  houses  of  congress  at  the  next  session,  proposing 
to  shut  our  ports,  after  the  30th  of  September,  against  all  vessels  coming 
from  all  British  colonies  or  possessions  not  included  in  the  general 
treaty,  unless  the  colonial  ports  should  be  reopened  to  our  vessels  on 
certain  prescribed  terms.     Neither  of  the  bills,  however,  became  a  law. 

The  act  of  March  1,  1823,  provided,  that  if  at  any  time  our  trade 
and  intercourse  with  the  enumerated  colonial  ports  should  be  prohibited 
by  Great  Britain,  proclamation  of  the  fact  having  been  made  by  the  pre- 
sident, the  prohibitory  provisions  of  the  acts  of  1818  and  1820  were  to 
be  revived.  Congress  having  failed  to  adopt  any  countervailing  mea- 
sure, the  president,  on  the  17th  of  March,  1827,  made  the  necessary  pro- 
clamation, and  declared  the  trade  and  intercourse  with  the  said  ports  to 
be  prohibited. 

The  West  India  question  had  assumed  a  party  character.  Our  disad- 
vantages were  said  to  be  the  result  of  a  mistaken  policy  by  the  adminis- 
tration and  its  predecessors.  The  want  of  concession,  the  extravagance 
of  our  demands,  the  rejection  of  fair  overtures  from  G-reat  Britain,  tardy 
legislation,  and  an  unwarrantable  reliance  on  negotiation,  were  among 
the  alleged  hinderances  to  a  favorable  adjustment.  But  whatever  of 
neglect  or  unskillful  management  might  have  been  justly  chargeable  to 
the  administration,  the  previous  history  of  the  commercial  policy  of 
Great  Britain,  her  persisting  refusal  to  the  United  States  of  a  fair  par- 
ticipation in  the  colonial  trade,  and  her  declining  farther  negotiation  in 
1826,  after  a  previous  pledge  to  resume  it,  without  giving  any  other  rea- 
son than  was  found  in  the  remark  of  Mr.  Canning,  that  "  he  would  not 
be  drawn  into  the  discussion  of  a  subject  that  had  already  been 
exhausted;" — afforded  strong  presumptive  evidence  of  her  indisposition 
to  arrange  the  trade  with  us  on  equitable  terms. 

Ever  intent  on  protecting  her  navigating  interest,  the  next  measure 
of  Great  Britain  was  an  act  of  parliament  authorizing  the  inland  intro- 
duction from  the  United  States  into  Canada,  free  of  duty,  of  ashes, 
staves,  lumber,  horses,  fresh  provisions,  and  sundry  other  productions,  to 
be  thence  carried  in  British  vessels  to  England  and  the  West  Indies,  as 
Canadian  produce.  And  the  more  effectually  to  cripple  our  navigation 
and  improve  her  own,  the  duties  on  these  articles  coming  from  the  United 
States  direct,  were  largely  increased,  while  from  Canada  they  were  admit- 
ted under  a  very  light  duty.  A  letter  from  a  mercantile  house  in  Liver- 
pool received  in  this  country,  said :  "  The  object  of  these  arrangements 
is  to  monopolize  the  carrying  trade  ;  and  in  them  is  to  be  found  the  true 
secret  why  the  ministry  declined  to  negotiate  respecting  the  West  India 
trade.  Although  they  had  pledged  themselves  to  adjust  the  matter  by 
negotiation  in  1824,  and  renewed  the  pledge  in  1825,  in  1826  they  deter- 

25     > 


386  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

mined  to  change  their  policy ;  and  the  clamors  of  the  shipping  interest, 
though  unjust,  urged  them  into  it  in  an  ungracious  manner :  and  if  you 
had  accepted  their  terms,  they  would,  when  they  determined  to  change 
the  system,  have  found  means  to  evade  the  spirit  of  that  act  by  some 
other." 

The  expectations,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  concerning  the  effects 
of  this  measure,  were  materially  disappointed.  Our  produce  still  found 
a  market  in  the  British  islands  by  way  of  the  neutral  islands,  to  which 
it  was  transported  in  American  vessels  ;  and  thence  it  was  reshipped  to 
the  British  islands.  Hence  our  navigation  was  not  very  sensibly  affected ; 
and  our  exports  to  the  West  Indies,  instead  of  their  having  been  dimin- 
ished, were  actually  increased,  notwithstanding  the  prohibition,  though 
probably  not  in  consequence  of  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Canadians 
complained  that  the  arrangement  had  not  secured  to  them  the  advantage 
of  supplying  the  West  India  islands  ;  and  the  extra  cost  of  this  indirect 
trade  fell  upon  British  consumers. 

This  arrangement,  however,  did  not  long  continue.  New  treaties  were 
concluded  by  Mr.  Gallatin  and  the  British  commissioners  at  London, 
the  6th  of  August,  1827.  The  ratifications  were  exchanged  at  London, 
April  2,  1828  ;  and  the  treaties  were  proclaimed  by  the  president  the 
5  th  of  May  following.  By  these  treaties  it  was  provided,  that  the  treaties 
of  1815  and  1818,  which  by  their  terms  were  limited  to  a  period  of 
ten  years  from  the  date  of  the  latter,  should  be  continued  for  another 
term  of  ten  years. 

A  convention  was  also  concluded,  by  which  the  parties  agreed  to  settle 
the  boundary  line,  by  submitting  the  question  to  some  friendly  power  for 
arbitration.  The  king  of  the  Netherlands  was  selected  as  the  umpire. 
His  award,  which  was  made  in  January,  1831,  was  not  satisfactory  to 
the  United  States.  In  fact,  he  did  not  decide  upon  the  question  sub- 
mitted to  him.  Instead  of  deciding  between  the  conflicting  claims  of  the 
parties,  he  selected  a  new  line  claimed  by  neither  party.  Great  Britain, 
having  been  awarded,  though  not  all  she  claimed,  yet  what  she  most 
desired — a  free  communication  between  her  provinces — gave  her  assent 
to  the  decision.  The  subject  was  submitted  to  the  senate,  in  January, 
1832.  That  body,  after  having  duly  considered  the  question,  advised  the 
president  to  open  a  new  negotiation  for  the  adjustment  of  the  boundary. 

A  subject  of  negotiation  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
was  the  navigation  of  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  commenced  before  the 
close  of  Mr.  Monroe's  administration.  In  his  annual  message  of  Decem- 
ber, 1823,  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  the  north-eastern  boundary, 
Mr.  Monroe  says :  "  It  appearing  from  long  experience,  that  no  satisfac- 
tory arrangement  could  be  formed  of  the  commercial  intercourse  between 


NAVKJATION    OF    THE    ST.    LAWRENCE,  387 

the  United  States  and  the  British  colonies  in  this  hemisphere  by  legisla- 
tive acts,  while  each  party  pursued  its  own  course  without  agreement  or 
concert  with  the  other,  a  proposal  has  been  made  to  the  British  govern- 
ment to  regulate  this  commerce  by  treaty,  as  it  has  been  to  arrange,  in 
like  manner,  the  just  claim  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  inhabits 
ing  the  states  and  territories  bordering  on  the  lakes  and  rivers  which 
empty  into  the  St.  Lawrence,  to  the  navigation  of  that  river  to  the  ocean. 
For  these  and  other  objects  of  high  importance  to  the  interests  of  both 
parties,  a  negotiation  has  been  opened  with  the  British  government 
which,  it  is  hoped,  will  have  a  satisfactory  result." 

On  the  7th  of  January,  1828,  Mr.  Adams,  then  president,  in  com- 
pliance with  a  resolution  of  the  house  of  th«  17th  of  December,  trans- 
mitted to  that  body  the  correspondence  with  the  government  of  Great 
Britain  relative  to  the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence.  This  cor- 
respondence derives  much  of  its  importance  from  the  principle  of  public 
law  which  forms  the  chief  subject  of  discussion. 

Mr.  Adams,  secretary  of  state,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Bush,  minister  at 
London,  in  1823,  suggested  that  the  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
might  be  claimed  by  our  citizens  as  a  rights  which,  he  thought,  might 
*'  be  established  upon  the  sound  and  general  principles  of  the  law  of 
nature."  If  the  right  had  not  been  distinctly  asserted  in  negotiation 
with  the  British  government,  it  was  because  the  benefits  of  it  had  been 
tacitly  conceded.  This  right  was  asserted  upon  the  principles  which 
were  asserted  when  our  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  was 
in  question.  The  people  had  the  natural  right  of  communicating  with 
the  ocean,  by  the  only  outlet  provided  by  nature,  from  the  waters  bord- 
ering upon  their  shores.  It  was  admitted  that  the  possession  of  both 
the  shores  of  a  river  at  its  mouth  had  been  held  to  give  the  right  of  ob- 
structing or  interdicting  the  navigation  of  it  to  the  people  of  other 
nations,  inhabiting  the  banks  of  the  river  above  the  boundary  of  that 
in  possession  of  its  mouth.  But  the  exclusive  right  of  jurisdiction  over 
a  river,  Mr  Adams  said,  originated  in  the  social  compact,  and  was  a 
right  of  sovereignty.  The  right  of  navigating  the  river  was  a  right  of 
nature,  preceding  it  in  point  of  time,  and  which  the  sovereign  right  of 
one  nation  could  not  annihilate,  as  belonging  to  the  people  of  another. 

By  the  act  of  parliament  of  June  24th,  1822,  the  people  of  the 
United  States  enjoyed  the  navigation  from  the  ocean  to  Quebec  ;  and  by 
an  act  of  August  5th,  1822,  above  that  port.  But  by  a  discretionary 
power  given  to  the  colonial  governments  in  Canada,  the  latter  of  these 
concessions  might  be  withdrawn,  by  excepting  any  of  the  Canadian 
ports  from  those  to  which  our  vessels  were  made  admissible  by  that  act ; 
so  that  our  enjoyment  of  the  navigation  of  this  river  was  conticgont 


388  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

upon  British  permission.  And  the  duties  imposed  by  the  act  upon  all 
those  of  our  exports  which  could  render  the  trade  profitable,  were 
prohibitory. 

The  grounds  of  our  claim  were  duly  presented  by  Mr.  Rush.  He 
urged  the  consideration  also,  that  "  the  exclusive  right  possessed  by 
Great  Britain  over  both  banks  of  this  river,  had  been  won  for  her  by 
the  cooperation  of  the  people  who  now  form  the  United  States.  Their 
exertions,  their  treasure,  their  blood,  were  profusely  embarked  in  every 
campaign  of  the  old  French  war ;  a  war  which,  but  for  the  aid  of  New 
England,  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  if  no  more  of  the  states,  would 
probably  not  have  terminated  when  it  did,  in  the  conquest  of  Canada 
from  France.  *  *  *  The  predecessors  of  the  present  inhabitants 
of  those  states  had  borne  a  constant  and  heavy  burden  in  that  war,  and 
had  acquired,  simultaneously  with  the  then  parent  state,  the  right  of 
descending  the  stream,  on  the  hypothesis,  assumed  for  the  moment,  of 
their  not  having  possessed  it  before ;  a  right  of  peculiar  importance  to 
them,  from  their  local  position  and  necessities."  Thus  a  title  had  been 
established  by  joint  acquisition.  Several  quotations  from  Vattel  and 
Grotius  were  made  in  order  to  sustain  the  claim  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  E-ush,  in  one  of  his  papers  to  the  British  government,  said : 
"  Having  seen  the  grounds  of  necessity  and  reason  upon  which  the 
right  of  so  great  and  growing  a  population  to  seek  its  only  natural 
pathway  to  the  ocean  rests,  it  may  be  expected  that  they  should 
be  supported  by  the  established  principles  of  international  law."  He 
cites  Vattel,  as  follows :  "  Nature,  .who  designs  her  gifts  for  the  common 
advantage  of  men,  does  not  allow  of  their  being  kept  from  their  use  when 
they  can  be  furnished  with  them,  without  any  prejudice  to  the  proprietor, 
and  by  leaving  still  untouched  all  the  utility  and  advantages  he  is  capa- 
ble of  receiving  from  his  rights."  Again  :  "  Property  can  not  deprive 
nations  of  the  general  right  of  traveling  over  the  earth  in  order  to  have 
a  communication  with  each  other,  for  carrying  on  trade  and  other  just 
reasons."  "  A  passage  ought  aUo  to  be  granted  for  merchandise;  and 
as  this  may  in  common  be  done  without  inconvenience,  to  refuse  it  with- 
out just  reason,  is  injuring  a  nation,  and  endeavoring  to  deprive  it  of  the 
means  of  carrying  on  a  trade  with  other  states."  And  again :  "  If 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other  of  two  nations,  near  a  river,  can  prove  that 
it  settled  first,  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  they  both  came  there  at  the 
same  time,  since  neither  can  give  a  reason  of  preference ;  and  in  this 
case  the  dominion  of  each  will  be  extended  to  the  middle  of  the  river." 
Hence,  Mr.  Rush  argued,  that,  if  the  settlements,  having  been  made  by 
the  two  nations  at  the  same  time,  gave  them  equal  dominion,  "  by  even  a 
stronger  reason  would  simultaneous  acquisition  confer  equality  of  pass- 


NAVIGATION    OF    THE    ST.    LAWRENCE.  389 

age."  To  the  same  effect  from  Grotius :  "  Upon  this  foundation  of  com- 
mon right,  a  free  passage  through  countries,  rivers,  or  over  any  part  of 
the  sea,  which  belong  to  some  particular  people,  ought  to  be  allowed  to 
those  who  require  it  for  the  necessary  occasions  of  life,  whether  those 
occasions  be  in  quest  of  settlements,  after  being  driven  from  their  own 
country,  or  to  trade  with  a  remote  nation^  "  A  free  passage  ought  to 
be  allowed,  not  only  to  persons  but  to  merchandise ;  ,  .  .  a  permission 
which,  for  the  interest  of  society,  should  be  maintained ;  nor  can  it  be 
said  that  any  one  is  injured  by  it;  for  though  he  may  thereby  be 
deprived  of  exclusive  gain,  yet  the  loss  of  what  is  not  his  due,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  right,  can  never  be  considered  as  a  damage,  or  the  violation  of  a 
claim." 

Hence,  our  minister  claimed,  on  the  ground  of  paramount  interest  and 
necessity  to  our  citizens,  and  on  that  of  natural  right  found'ed  on  this 
necessity,  a  full  and  free  navigation  of  this  river,  from  its  source  to  the  sea. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  expressed  their  surprise  at  the  claim  of 
the  United  States,  on  the  ground  of  right.  It  required  an  enlarged  view 
of  what  one  nation  owed  in  courtesy  to  another,  to  justify  the  British 
government  in  entering  on  the  discussion  of  a  claim  so  novel  and  exten- 
sive. A  right  claimed  on  one  side  without  qualification,  leaves  no  room 
for  friendly  concession  on  the  other.  As  a  concession  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain,  for  which  they  expected  an  equivalent,  and  as  such  only, 
they  were  willing  to  treat  with  the  United  States.  They  replied  at 
length  to  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Rush,  and  alleged  that  he  had  made  a 
wrong  application  of  the  authorities  quoted.  The  right  of  navigating 
this  river,  alleged  to  be  a  right  of  nature,  preexistent  in  point  of  time, 
and  incapable  of  annihilation,  could  be  no  otlier  than  what  is  generally 
designated  in  the  law  of  nations  as  a  perfect  right,  which  is  one  that 
exists  independent  of  treaty ;  which  necessarily  arises  from  the  law  of 
nature ;  which  is  common  to  all  independent  nations,  and  can  never  be 
denied  or  violated  by  any  state  without  a  breach  of  the  law  of  nations. 
Such  was  the  right  to  navigate  the  ocean  without  molestation  in  time  of 
peace.  Applying  these  principles,  now  universally  admitted,  to  the  case 
of  the  St.  Lawrence,  the  American  government  maintained  that  Great 
Britain,  possessing  both  shores  of  the  river  at  its  mouth,  would  be  no 
more  justified  in  controlling  American  navigation  on  that  river,  than  on 
the  high  seas.  But  falling  under  the  denomination  of  an  imperfect  right, 
it  became  subject  to  considerations  entirely  different. 

The  case  of  the -Mississippi,  it  was  said,  was  not  in  point.  Its  naviga- 
tion had  been  opened  to  British  subjects  by  the  treaty  of  1763,  concluded 
after  a  war  in  which  Great  Britain  had  been  successful.  France  had 
made  this  concession  from  the  same  motives  as  had  induced  her  to  cede 


390  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Canada  to  Grreat  Britain.  The  agreement  respecting  that  river  made  a 
part  of  the  general  provisions  as  to  the  western  boundary  of  the  British 
American  possessions,  by  which  the  whole  left  side  of  the  Mississippi  was 
ceded  to  Great  Britain,  except  the  town  and  island  of  New  Orleans. 
This  reservation  had  been  admitted  on  the  express  condition,  that  the 
navigation  of  the  whole  channel  should  be  open  to  British  subjects.  The 
very  fact  of  its  having  been  thought  necessary  to  insert  this  stipulation 
in  the  treaty,  in  consequence  of  France  having  retained  possession  of 
both  banks  of  the  river  at  a  single  post,  led  irresistibly  to  an  inference 
the  reverse  of  what  was  maintained  by  the  American  plenipotentiary. 

Nor  was  the  right  founded  upon  acquired  title  conceded  by  Great 
Britain.  If  the  liberty  of  navigating  the  St.  Lawrence,  which  the  people 
of  the  United  States  enjoyed  when  a  part  of  the  British  empire,  contin- 
ued to  belong  to  them  after  their  separation  from  the  mother  country^ 
the  subjects  of  Great  Britain  would  have  an  equal  right,  in  common  with 
American  citizens,  to  the  use  of  the  navigable  rivers  of  the  United  States, 
which  they  enjoyed  when  both  countries  were  united  under  the  same 
government.  By  the  treaty  which  acknowledged  the  independence  of 
the  United  States,  a  perpetual  line  of  demarkation  had  been  drawn 
between  the  two  powers,  no  longer  connected  by  any  other  ties  than  those 
of  amity  and  conventional  agreement.  The  people  of  the  United  States, 
thus  separated  from  Great  Britain,  could  not  possibly  retain  any  portion 
of  the  sovereignty  of  the  British  empire. 

Mr.  Gallatin,  in  September  and  October,  1827,  wrote  to  Mr.  Clay, 
that  the  government  of  Great  Britain  was  still  unwilling  to  entertain 
any  proposition  respecting  the  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  founded 
on  the  right  claimed  by  the  United  States  to  navigate  that  river  to  the 
sea ;  and  he  advised,  that,  whilst  the  trade  with  the  British  West  Indies 
remained  interdicted,  the  intercourse  by  land  or  inland  navigation  with 
the  North  American  British  provinces  be  left  to  be  regulated  by  the 
laws  of  each  country,  respectively.  The  measures  of  which  our  citizens 
had  complained,  no  longer  existed.  The  warehousing  system  had  been 
extended  to  the  ports  of  Montreal,  Quebec,  and  St.  Johns,  and  places  of 
deposit  were  allowed  for  American  produce,  free  of  duty,  in  case  of  ex- 
portation ;  which  was  all  that  we  could,  in  that  respect,  ask  as  a  matter 
of  right.  The  navigation  between  Montreal  and  Quebec,  either  to  the 
sea,  or  from  the  sea,  could  not  now  be  obtained  by  treaty  stipulation 
without  what  would  be  considered  a  disclaimer  of  the  right. 

Mr.  Clay,  in  his  instructions  to  Mr.  Gallatin,  having  said  that  the 
president  could  not  consent  to  any  treaty  by  which  the  United  States 
should  renounce  the  right  of  navigating  the  St.  Lawrence  and  Great 
Britain  persisting  in  her  refusal  to  acknowledge  this  right,  the  negotia- 
tion  was  unsuccessful. 


NOMINATION   OF    GEN.    JACKSON.  391 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

NOMINATION  OF  GEN.  JACKSON. MOKE  OF  THE  " 

LETTERS  ON  THE  TARIFF  AND  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS. 

Soon  after  the  election  of  Mr.  Adams,  it  became  apparent  that  he  was 
destined  to  encounter,  alone,  in  the  next  presidential  campaign,  the  oppo- 
sition of  his  most  formidable  rival  in  1824.. 

As  early  as  October,  1825,  G-en.  Jackson  was  nominated  by  the  legis- 
lature of  Tennessee  as  a  candidate  for  president  in  1 828.  ,|After  a  long 
preamble,  in  which  the  legislature  disclaim  being  "  influenced  by  the 
motive  of  state  pride  or  personal  considerations,"  they  resolve,  "  That 
Gen.  Andrew  Jackson,  of  this  state,  be  recommended  to  the  freemen  of 
the  United  States,  as  a  fellow-citizen,  who,  by  his  numerous  and  faithful 
public  services  in  the  cabinet  and  in  the  field,  his  energy  and  decision, 
his  political  qualifications,  and  strict  adherence  to  the  principles  of  repub- 
licanism, merits  to  be  elected  to  the  office  of  chief  magistrate  of  this 
union,  at  the  next  presidential  election."  This  resolution  was  said  to 
have  been  unanimously  adopted  in  one  house,  and  with  but  one  dissent- 
ing voice  in  the  other. 

On  the  next  day,  (October  7,)  a  series  of  resolutions  was  adopted, 
expressive  of  the  respect  and  attachment  entertained  by  the  legislature 
towards  the  general,  and  of  their  purpose  to  receive  him  in  the  repre- 
sentative hall  on  the  day  next  after  his  arrival  at  the  seat  of  government ; 
and  the  speakers,  on  behalf  of  the  two  houses,  were  required  to  deliver 
to  him  addresses,  expressing  the  satisfaction  of  the  legislature  in  relation 
to  the  course  he  pursued  during  the  pendency  of  the  late  presidential 
election. 

The  general  arrived  at  Murfreesborough  on  the  13th,  and  the  next 
day  he  was  conducted  by  a  committee  of  the  legislature  to  the  hall,  and 
addressed  by  the  speakers  of  the  two  houses ;  to  which  he  made  an  appro- 
priate reply,  and  then  handed  in  a  resignation  of  his  seat  in  the  senate 
of  the  United  States. 

He  assigned  as  reasons  for  his  resignation,  the  fatigue  of  traveling  to 
and  from  Washington,  and  the  fact  that  nothing  of  great  national  impor- 
tance was  likely  to  come  before  congress,  except  the  proposition  to  amend 
the  constitution  in  relation  to  the  election  of  president.  He  intimated 
that  he  might  have  thought  it  his  duty  to  continue  in  the  senate  to  aid 
in  eflFecting  such  alteration.  But  having  been  apprised  of  his  nomi- 
nation, he  could  no  longer  hesitate  as  to  the  course  he  should  pursue,  and 


392  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

accordingly  asked  to  be  excused  from  any  farther  service  in  the  councils 
of  the  nation  ;  saying,  that  he  "  could  not  consent  to  urge  or  encourage 
an  alteration  which  might  wear  the  appearance  of  being  induced  by  sel- 
fish considerations." 

He  then  proceeded  to  make  some  suggestions  in  reference  to  the 
amendment  proposed  to  be  made.  He  thought  some  new  barrier  to  the 
encroachments  of  power  was  necessary.  "There  is  no  truth,"  he  ob- 
served, "  more  conclusively  stamped  upon  all  the  state  constitutions,  as 
well  as  the  federal  constitution,  than  that  which  requires  the  great  de- 
partments of  power,  the  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive,  to  be  kept 
separate  and  apart.  *  *  *  Gratitude  to  the  founders  of  our  happy 
government,  can  not  be  lessened  by  honest  efforts,  on  our  part,  to  im- 
prove, or  rather  to  fortify,  the  blessings  which  have  been  transmitted  to 
us,  with  such  additional  safeguards  as  experience  has  proved  to  be 
necessary. 

*'  Upon  this  principle,  I  venture  fully  to  accord  with  you  in  the  con- 
templated change  proposed  to  the  constitution ;  and  indeed  would  go 
farther.  With  a  view  to  sustain  more  effectually  in  practice  the  axiom 
which  divides  the  three  great  classes  of  power  into  independent,  consti- 
tutional checks,  I  would  impose  a  provision  rendering  any  member  of 
congress  ineligible  to  office,  under  the  general  government,  during  the 
term  for  which  he  was  elected,  and  for  two  years  thereafter,  except  in 
cases  of  judicial  office;  and  these  I  would  except  for  the  reason,  that 
vacancies  in  this  department  are  not  frequent  occurrences,  and  because 
no  barrier  should  be  interposed  in  selecting,  to  the  bench,  men  of  the 
first  talents  and  integrity."     *     *     * 

"  The  effect  of  such  a  constitutional  provision  is  obvious.  By  it 
congress,  in  a  considerable  degree,  would  be  free  from  that  connection 
with  the  executive  department  which  at  present  gives  strong  ground  of 
apprehension  and  jealousy  on  the  part  of  the  people.  Members,  instead 
of  being  liable  to  be  withdrawn  from  legislating  on  the  great  interests 
of  the  nation,  through  prospects  of  executive  patronage,  would  be  more 
liberally  confided  in  by  their  constituents ;  while  their  vigilance  would 
be  less  interrupted  by  party  feelings  and  party  excitements.  Calcula- 
tion from  intrigue  or  management  would  fail ;  nor  would  their  delibera- 
tion or  their  investigation  of  subjects  consume  so  much  time.  The 
morals  of  the  country  would  be  improved ;  and  virtue,  uniting  with  the 
labors  of  the  representatives,  and  with  the  official  ministers  of  the  law, 
would  tend  to  perpetuate  the  honor  and  glory  of  the  government. 

"  But  if  this  change  in  the  constitution  should  not  be  obtained,  and 
important  offices  continue  to  devolve  on  the  representatives  in  congress, 
it  requires  no  depth  of  thought  to  be  convinced,  that  corruption  will  be- 


NOMINATION    OF    GEN.    JACKSON.  393 

come  the  order  of  the  day ;  and  that,  under  the  garb  of  conscientious 
sacrijfices  to  establish  precedents  for  the  public  good,  evils  of  serious 
importance  to  the  freedom  and  prosperity  of  the  republic  may  arise.  It 
is  through  this  channel  that  the  people  may  expect  to  be  attacked  in 
their  constitutional  sovereignty,  and  where  tyranny  may  well  be  appre- 
hended to  spring  up  in  some  favorable  emergency.  Against  such  inroads, 
every  guard  ought  to  be  interposed ;  and  none  better  occurs  than  that 
of  closing  the  suspected  avenue  with  some  necessary  constitutional 
restriction.  We  know  human  nature  to  be  prone  to  evil ;  we  arc  early 
taught  to  pray  that  we  may  not  be  led  into  temptation  ;  and  hence  the 
opinion  that,  by  constitutional  provision,  all  avenues  to  temptation,  on 
the  part  of  our  political  servants,  should  be  closed. 

"■  As,  by  a  resolution  of  your  honorable  body,  you  have  thought  pro- 
per again  to  present  my  name  to  the  American  people,  I  must  entreat 
to  be  excused  from  any  farther  service  in  the  senate,  and  to  suggest,  in 
conclusion,  that  it  is  due  to  myself  to  practice  upon  the  maxims  recom- 
mended to  others  ;  and  hence  feel  constrained  to  retire  from  a  situation 
where  temptations  may  exist,  and  suspicions  may  arise  of  the  exercise 
of  an  influence  tending  to  my  own  aggrandizement." 

This  nomination  of  Gen.  Jackson  by  the  legislature  of  his  own  state, 
was  early  followed  by  nominations  in  other  parts  of  the  country.  A 
large  portion  of  the  friends  of  Mr.  Crawford,  having  had  a  stronger  re- 
pugnance to  Gen.  Jackson  than  to  any  other  candidate  at  the  last  election, 
were  for  a  time  unwilling  to  unite  with  the  friends  of  the  latter.  There 
being,  however,  no  hope  of  succeeding  with  any  other  candidate,  such 
union  was  at  length  effected ;  and  the  organization  of  the  opposition  to 
Mr.  Adams  may  be  considered  as  having  been  completed  early  in  1827. 

Although  the  excitement  produced  by  the  union  of  the  friends  of 
Adams  and  Clay  in  the  election  of  president  had  experienced  some 
abatement,  the  subject  had  by  no  means  been  permitted  to  slumber. 
The  term,  ''  coalition  party,"  had  acquired  a  common  use  among  the 
opposition  in  designating  the  friends  and  supporters  of  the  administra- 
tion. "Coalition" — "bargain" — "corruption" — were  as  familiar  as 
household  words.  As  electioneering  arguments,  they  had  been  found  too 
effective  not  to  be  employed  in  the  attempt  to  overthrow  the  administra- 
tion. Much  of  their  efficiency  was  derived  from  facts  and  circumstances 
which  furnished  at  least  some  apparent  ground  for  the  accusation. 

In  April,  1827,  whether  from  a  design  to  influence  the  approaching 
presidential  election,  or  for  some  other  purpose,  the  following  anonymous 
letter  was  published  in  the  Fayetteville  (N.  C.)  Observer: 


394  ^  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

"  Nashville,  8th  March,  1827. 
"  I  have  just  returned  from  Gen.  Jackson's.  I  found  a  crowd  of 
company  with  him  ;  seven  Virginians  were  of  the  number.  He  gave  me 
a  most  friendly  reception,  and  urged  me  to  stay  some  days  longer  with 
him.  He  told  me  this  morning,  before  all  his  company,  in  reply  to  a 
question  I  put  to  him  concerning  the  election  of  J.  Q.  Adams  for  the 
presidency,  that  Mr.  Clay's  friends  made  a  proposition  to  his  friends, 
that  if  they  would  promise,  for  him,  not  to  put  Mr.  Adams  into  the  seat 
of  secretary  of  state,  Clay  and  his  friends  would,  in  one  hour,  make  him, 
Jackson,  the  president.  He  most  indignantly  rejected  the  proposition, 
and  declared  he  would  not  compromit  himself;  and  unless  most  openly 
and  fairly  made  the  president  by  congress,  he  would  never  receive  it. 
He  declared  that  he  said  to  them,  he  would  see  the  whole  earth  sink 
under  him,  before  he  would  bargain  or  intrigue  for  it." 

To  the  statements  contained  in  this  letter,  persons  professing  to  speak 
by  authority  of  Mr.  Clay,  gave  a  prompt  and  unequivocal  denial,  and 
expressed  the  belief,  that  the  declarations  ascribed  to  Gen.  Jackson  had 
never  been  made  by  him.  It  soon  became  known,  that  the  author  of 
this  letter  was  Carter  Beverley,  of  Wheeling,  Virginia.  His  veracity 
being  impeached  by  the  above  denial,  he  wrote  to  Gen.  Jackson,  (May 
15,)  requesting  a  written  confirmation  of  the  statements  in  his  letter  to 
his  friend  in  North  Carolina.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  the 
general's  reply : 

"  Hermitage,  June  5,  1827. 

^^  Dear  Sir: —  *  *  *  Early  in  January,  1825,  a  member  of 
congress  of  high  respectability,  visited  me  one  morning,  and  observed, 
that  he  had  a  communication  he  was  desirous  to  make  to  me ;  that  he 
was  informed  there  was  a  great  intrigue  going  on  ;  and  that  it  was  right 
I  should  be  informed  of  it.  *  *  *  He  said  he  had  been  informed 
by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Clay,  that  the  friends  of  Mr.  Adams  had  made 
overtures  to  them  saying,  if  Mr.  Clay  and  his  friends  would  unite  in  aid 
of  the  election  of  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Clay  should  be  secretary  of  state. 
That  the  friends  of  Mr.  Adams  were  urging,  as  a  reason  to  induce  the 
friends  of  Mr.  Clay  to  accede  to  their  proposition,  that  if  I  was  elected 
president,  Mr.  Adams  would  be  continued  secretary  of  state,  (inuendo, 
there  would  be  no  room  for  Kentucky.)  That  the  friends  of  Mr.  Clay 
stated,  the  west  did  not  wish  to  separate  from  the  west;  and  if  I  w^ould 
say,  or  permit  any  of  my  confidential  friends  to  say,  that,  in  case  I  was 
elected  president,  Mr.  Adams  should  not  be  continued  secretary  of  state, 
by  a  complete  union  of  Mr.  Clay  and  his  friends,  they  would  put  an  e.-nd 
to  the  presidential  contest  in  one  hour.     And  he  was  of  opinion  it  was 


MORE    OF    THE    "  COALITION."  395 

right  to  fight  such  intriguers  with  their  own  weapons.  To  which,  in 
substance,  I  replied,  that  in  politics,  as  in  every  thing  else,  my  guide 
was  principle;  and,  contrary  to  the  expressed  and  unbiased  will  of  the 
people,  or  their  constituted  agents,  I  never  would  step  into  the  presi- 
dential chair ;  and  requested  him  to  say  to  Mr.  Clay  and  his  friends, 
(for  I  did  suppose  he  had  come  from  Mr.  Clay,  although  he  used  the 
term  of  Mr.  Clay's  friends,)  that  before  I  would  reach  the  presidential 
chair  by  such  means  of  bargain  and  corruption,  I  would  see  the  earth 
open,  and  swallow  Mr.  Clay  and  his  friends,  and  myself  with  them.  If 
they  had  not  confidence  in  me  to  believe,  if  I  was  elected,  that  I  would 
call  to  my  aid  in  the  cabinet  men  of  the  first  virtue,  talent  and  integrity, 
not  to  vote  for  me.  The  second  day  after  this  communication,  and 
reply,  it  was  announced  in  the  newspapers,  that  Mr.  Clay  had  come 
out  openly  and  avowedly  in  favor  of  Mr.  Adams. 

'^  It  may  be  proper  to  observe,  that,  in  the  supposition  that  Mr.  Clay 
was  privy  to  the  proposition  stated,  I  may  have  done  injustice  to  him; 
if  so,  the  gentlemen  informing  me  can  explain." 

To  these  statements,  Mr.  Clay,  in  a  letter  "to  the  public,"  dated  June 
29,  1827,  and  in  a  speech  at  Lexington,  July  12,  gave  another  unquali- 
fied denial.  In  the  letter  he  says  :  "  Gen.  Jackson  having  at  last  vol- 
untarily placed  himself  in  the  attitude  of  my  public  accuser,  we  are  now 
fairly  at  an  issue.  I  rejoice  that  a  specific  accusation  by  a  responsible 
accuser  has  at  length  appeared,  though  at  the  distance  of  near  two  and 
a  half  years  since  the  charge  was  first  put  forth  through  Mr.  George 
Kremer.  *  *  *  Such  being  the  accusation  and  the  prosecutor  and 
the  issue  between  us,  I  have  now  a  right  to  expect  that  he  will  substan- 
tiate his  charges,  by  the  exhibition  of  satisfactory  evidence.  In  that 
event,  there  is  no  punishment  which  would  exceed  the  measure  of  my 
offense.  In  the  opposite  event,  what  ought  to  be  the  judgment  of  the 
American  public,  is  cheerfully  submitted  to  their  wisdom  and  justice." 

To  this  the  general  replied,  July  18,  in  an  address  "  to  the  public," 
in  which  he  named  James  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  as  the  member 
of  congress  by  whom  the  disclosure  had  been  made,  and  in  which,  after 
repeating  the  conversation  as  related  in  his  letter  to  Beverley,  and  men- 
tioning some  other  circumstances,  he  said  :  "  What  other  conclusion  or 
inference  was  to  be  made,  than  that  he  spoke  by  authority,  either  of  Mr. 
Clay  himself  or  some  of  his  confidential  friends  ?  The  character  of  Mr. 
Buchanan,  with  me,  forbids  the  idea  that  he  was  acting  on  his  own  re- 
sponsibility, or  that,  under  any  circumstances,  he  could  have  been  in- 
duced to  propose  an  arrangement,  unless  possessed  of  satisfactory  assur- 
ances that,  if  accepted,  it  would  be  carried  fully  into  eff'ect.     *     *     * 


396  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

Still  I  have  not  said,  nor  do  I  now  say,  that  the  proposal  made  to  me 
was  '  with  the  privity  and  consent '  of  Mr.  Clay,  nor  either  have  I  said 
that  his  friends  in  congress  had  made  propositions  to  me." 

This  brought  out  Mr.  Buchanan  in  a  letter,  August  8,  to  the  editor 
of  the  Lancaster  Journal.  As  the  truth  of  the  charges  of  Gen.  Jack- 
son depends  essentially  for  confirmation  upon  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Buchanan,  all  the  more  material  parts  of  his  letter  are  here  given.  He 
says: 

"  In  the  month  of  December,  1 824,  a  short  time  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  session  of  congress,  I  heard,  among  other  rumors  then  in 
circulation,  that  Gen.  Jackson  had  determined,  should  he  be  elected 
president,  to  continue  Mr.  Adams  in  the  office  of  secretary  of  state. 
Although  I  felt  certain  he  had  never  intimated  such  an  intention,  yet  I 
was  sensible  that  nothing  could  be  better  calculated  both  to  cool  the  ardor 
of  his  friends,  and  inspire  his  enemies  with  confidence,  than  the  belief 
that  he  had  already  selected  his  chief  competitor  for  the  highest  office 
within  his  gift.  I  thought  Gen.  Jackson  owed  it  to  himself  and  to  the 
cause  in  which  his  political  friends  were  engaged,  to  contradict  this. re- 
port, and  to  declare  that  he  would  not  appoint  to  that  office  the  man, 
however  worthy  he  might  be,  who  stood  at  the  head  of  the  most  formid- 
able party  of  his  political  enemies." 

Alluding  to  a,  conversation  he  had  with  Mr.  Markley,  a  representative 
from  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  Buchanan  says  :  "  Mr.  Markley  adverted  to  the 
rumor  which  I  have  mentioned,  and  said  it  was  calculated  to  injure  the 
general.  He  observed  that  Mr.  Clay's  friends  were  warmly  attached  to 
him,  and  that  he  thought  they  would  endeavor  to  act  in  concert  at  the 
election.  That  if  they  did  so,  they  could  elect  either  Mr.  Adams  or 
Gen.  Jackson,  at  their  pleasure ;  but  that  many  of  them  would  never 
agree  to  vote  for  the  latter,  if  they  knew  that  he  had  predetermined  to 
prefer  another  to  Mr.  Clay  for  the  first  office  in  his  gift.  And  that 
some  of  the  friends  of  Mr.  Adams  had  already  been  holding  out  the 
idea,  that  in  case  he  were  elected,  Mr.  Clay  might  probably  be  offered 
the  situation  of  secretary  of  state." 

Mr.  Buchanan,  having  suggested  that  some  one  ought  to  call  upon 
General  Jackson,  and  get  from  him  a  contradiction  of  the  report,  says  : 
"  Mr.  Markley  urged  me  to  do  so,  and  observed,  if  Gen.  Jackson  had 
not  determined  whom  he  would  appoint  secretary  of  state,  and  should 
say  that  it  would  not  be  Mr.  Adams,  it  might  be  of  great  advantage  to 
our  cause  for  us  so  to  declare,  upon  his  own  authority  :  we  should  then 
be  placed  upon  the  same  footing  with  the  Adams  men,  and  might  fight 
them  with  their  own  weapons.  That  the  western  members  would 
naturally  prefer  voting  for  a  western  man,  if  there  were  a  probability 


MORE    OF    THE    "  COALITION."  397 

that  the  claims  of  Mr.  Clay  to  the  second  office  in  the  government  should 
be  fairly  estimated ;  and  that  if  they  thought  proper  to  vote  for  Gen. 
Jackson,  they  could  soon  decide  the  contest  in  his  favor." 

Mr.  Buchanan,  desiring  to  obtain  from  Gen.  Jackson  a  contradiction 
of  the  report,  called  on  him  for  that  purpose ;  informed  him  of  the  re- 
port in  circulation,  and  told  him  that  it  might  be  injurious  to  his  elec- 
tion ;  and  that,  if  he  had  not  determined  to  appoint  Mr.  Adams,  the  re- 
port should  be  promptly  contradicted  under  his  own  authority.  Mr.  B. 
in  relating  the  conversation  between  himself  and  Gen.  Jackson,  says 
farther  :  "  I  mentioned,  it  had  already  probably  done  him  some  injury, 
and  proceeded  to  relate  to  him  the  substance  of  the  conversation  which 
I  had  held  with  Mr.  Markley.  I  do  not  remember  whether  I  mentioned 
his  name,  or  merely  described  him  as  a  friend  of  Mr.  Clay. 

"  After  I  had  finished,  the  general  declared,  he  had  not  the  least  ob- 
jection to  answer  my  question  ;  that  he  thought  well  of  Mr.  Adams,  but 
had  never  said  or  intimated  that  he  would,  or  that  he  would  not,  appoint 
him  secretary  of  state ;  that  these  were  secrets  he  would  keep  to  him- 
self;"  and  "  that  if  he  should  ever  be  elected  president,  it  would  be 
without  solicitation  and  without  intrigue  on  his  part.  I  then  asked  him 
if  I  were  at  liberty  to  repeat  his  answer.  He  said  I  was  perfectly  at 
liberty  to  do  so  to  any  person  I  thought  proper.  *  *  *  I  do  not  recol- 
lect that  Gen.  Jackson  told  me  I  might  repeat  his  answer  to  Mr.  Clay 
and  his  friends  ;  though  I  should  be  sorry  to  say  he  did  not. 

"  I  called  on  Gen.  Jackson  solely  as  his  friend,  upon  my  individual 
responsibility,  and  not  as  the  agent  of  Mr.  Clay  or  any  other  person. 
Until  I  saw  Gen.  Jackson's  letter  to  Mr.  Beverley  of  the  5th  ult.,  and 
at  the  same  time  was  informed  by  a  letter  from  the  editor  of  the  United 
States'  Telegraph,  that  I  was  the  person  to  whom  he  alluded,  the  con- 
ception never  once  entered  my  mind  that  he  believed  me  to  have  been 
the  agent  of  Mr.  Clay  or  of  his  friends,  or  that  I  had  intended  to  pro- 
pose to  him  terms  of  any  kind  for  them,  or  that  he  could  have  supposed 
me  to  be  capable  of  expressing  the  opinion,  that  it  was  right  to  *  fight 
them  with  their  own  weapons.'  He  could  not,  I  think,  have  received 
this  impression,  until  after  Mr.  Clay  and  his  friends  had  actually  elected 
Mr.  Adams  president,  and  Mr.  Adams  had  appointed  Mr.  Clay  secretary 
of  state.  After  those  events  had  transpired,  it  may  be  readily  conjec- 
tured in  what  manner  my  communication  has  led  him  into  the  mistake. 
I  deeply  deplore  that  such  has  been  its  efi"ect." 

A  letter  from  Mr.  Eaton,  a  senator  from  Tennessee,  to  the  public, 
(September  18,)  follows  that  of  Mr.  Buchanan.  He  diff'ers  with  Mr.  B. 
as  to  the  date  of  the  interview  with  Gen.  Jackson,  making  it  about  the 
20th  of  January.     He  says:  "  In  January,  1825,  a  few  days  before  it 


598  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

had  beeu  known  that  Mr.  Clay  and  his  friends  had  declared  in  favor  of 
Mr.  Adams,  I  was  called  upon  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania.  He 
said  it  was  pretty  well  understood,  that  overtures  were  making  by  the 
friends  of  Adams,  on  the  subject  of  cabinet  appointments  :  that  Jackson 
should  fight  them  with  their  own  weapons.  He  said  the  opinion  was, 
that  Jackson  would  retain  Adams,  and  that  it  was  doing  him  injury. 
That  the  general  should  state  whom  he  would  make  secretary  of  state, 
and  desired  that  I  would  name  it  to  him.  My  reply  was,  that  I  was 
satisfied  that  Gen.  Jackson  would  say  nothing  on  the  subject.  Mr.  B. 
then  remarked :  '  Well,  if  he  will  merely  say  he  will  not  retain  Mr. 
Adams,  that  will  answer.'  I  replied,  I  was  satisfied.  Gen.  Jackson  would 
neither  say  who  should,  or  who  should  not,  be  secretary  of  state ;  but 
that  he,  (Mr.  B.,)  knew  him  well,  and  might  talk  with  him  as  well  as  I 
could.  Mr.  Buchanan  then  said,  that  on  the  next  day,  before  the  general 
went  to  the  house,  he  would  call.  He  did  so,  as  I  afterwards  under- 
stood." 

Having  in  his  letter  spoken  of  Mr.  Markley  as  "  the  negotiator"  of  the 
bargain,  Mr.  M.,  on  the  30th  of  October,  replied  to  Mr.  Eaton.  He 
said  he  was  called  on  the  latter  end  of  December,  1824,  by  Mr. 
Buchanan,  who  expressed  "  great  solicitude  for  the  election  of  Gen. 
Jackson,"  and  "  adverted  to  the  rumors  which  were  afloat,  that  the 
friends  of  Mr.  Adams  were  holding  out  the  idea,  that  in  case  he  should 
be  elected,  Mr.  Clay  would  probably  be  ofi'ered  the  situation  of  secretary 
of  state  ;  and  that  if  Gen.  Jackson  was  elected,  he  would  appoint  or  con- 
tinue Mr.  Adams.  I  told  Mr.  Buchanan  I  thought  such  a  report  was 
calculated  to  do  the  general  a  great  deal  of  injury :  and  if  it  were  not 
well  founded,  it  ought  to  be  contradicted  ;  and  mentioned  farther,  that 
there  was  great  plausibility  in  such  reports,  and  that  their  receiving 
credit,  particularly  that  which  represented  Gen.  Jackson  as  having  de- 
termined, if  he  should  be  elected,  that  he  would  continue  Mr.  Adams  as 
secretary  of  state ;  as  Mr.  Adams  had  been  one  of  his  ablest  defenders 
and  advocates  in  his  report  sustaining  Gen.  Jackson  against  the  charges 
which  were  preferred  against  him  for  his  conduct  in  relation  to  the  Sem- 
inole war. 

"  Mr.  Buchanan  also  asked  if  I  had  seen  Mr.  Clay,  and  whether  I  had 
had  any  conversation  with  him  touching  the  presidential  election.  I 
replied  that  I  had  seen  him  in  the  house,  but  had  had  no  conversation 
with  him  on  that  subject,  but  said  I  was  anxious  to  get  an  opportunity  to 
have  a  conversation  with  him,  as  I  felt  a  great  anxiety  that  he  should  vote 
with  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  B.  replied,  that  no  one  felt  more  anxious,  for 
various  reasons,  than  he  did  himself;  that  it  was  important,  not  only  as 
it  regarded  the  success  of  Gen.  Jackson's  election,  that  Mr.  Clay  should 


MORE    OF    THE    "  COALITION."  399 

go  with  Pennsylvania,  but  on  account  of  his  ulterior  political  prospects ; 
declaring  that  he  (Mr.  13.)  hoped  one  day  to  see  Mr.  Clay  president  of 
the  United  States ;  and  that  was  another  reason  why  he  should  like  to 
see  him  secretary  of  state  in  case  Gen.  Jackson  was  elected ;  and  that  if 
he  was  certain  that  Mr.  Clay's  views  were  favorable  to  Gen.  Jackson's 
election,  he  would  take  an  opportunity  of  talking  to  the  general  on  the 
subject,  or  to  get  Mr.  Eaton  to  do  so  ;  that  he  thought  by  doing  so,  he 
would  confer  a  particular  benefit  on  his  country  ;  and  that  he  could  see 
nothing  wrong  in  it." 

Mr.  Markley  says,  that,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  he  agreed  to 
call  on  Mr.  Clay  ;  but  having  no  favorable  opportunity  of  presenting  this 
subject  to  him,  he  had  not  ascertained  which  candidate  he  would  support. 
He  says  in  his  letter  :  "  I  have  no  recollection  whatever  of  having  urged 
Mr.  B.  to  see  Gen.  Jackson,  although  I  concurred  in  the  propriety  of 
his  suggestion  that  he  should  call  to  see  him ;  nor  have  I  the  faintest 
recollection  of  any  thing  being  said  about  fighting  Mr.  Adams'  friends 
with  their  own  weapons.  If  any  such  expressions  were  used  I  am  very 
certain  it  was  not  by  me.  From  the  recollection  I  have  of  the  conver- 
sation to  which  Mr.  B.  has  reference,  in  his  letter  to  the  public  of  the 
8th  of  August  last,  my  impressions  are,  that  the  object  of  his  visit 
that  evening,  was  to  urge  the  propriety  of  my  seeing  Mr.  Clay, 
and  give  him  my  views  of  the  importance  of  identifying  himself  with 
Pennsylvania  in  support  of  Gen.  Jackson.  I  entertained  no  doubt,  that 
Mr.  Buchanan  was  honestly  determined,  that  no  exertions  on  his  part 
should  be  wanting,  and  that  he  felt  confident  he  could  speak  with  cer- 
tainty as  to  the  great  mass  of  Gen.  Jackson's  friends,  that  in  case  of  his 
election,  they  would  press  upon  him  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Clay  as 
secretary  of  state. 

"  Mr.  Buchanan  concurred  with  me  in  opinion,  that  Pennsylvania 
would  prefer  Mr.  Clay's  appointment  to  that  of  any  other  person  as  sec- 
retary of  state ;  and  from  the  obligations  the  general  was  under  to  Penn- 
sylvania, that  he  would  go  far  to  gratify  her  wishes ;  and  that  therefore 
he  believed  the  general,  if  elected,  would  appoint  Mr.  Clay." 

The  controversy  was  continued  by  letters  from  several  other  gentlemen, 
but  without  essentially  changing  the  aspect  of  the  affair. 

In  December,  1827,  Mr.  Clay  again  appeared  before  the  public  in 
"  An  address  containing  certain  testimonials  in  refutation  of  the  charges 
against  him,  made  by  Gen.  Andrew  Jackson,  touching  the  last  presiden- 
tial election."  Mr.  Clay  presents  the  letters  of  twenty  different  mem- 
bers of  congress,  embracing  all  his  friends  from  the  western  states  who 
voted  for  Mr.  Adams ;  and  all  concur  in  denying  any  knowledge  of  any 
overture  or  proposition  of  the  kind  mentioned  by  Gen.  Jackson.     And 


400  THE   AMERICAN   STATESMAN. 

a^  Mr.  Clay's  alleged  concealment  of  his  intention  to  vote  for  Mr.  Adams, 
until  within  a  few  days  of  the  election  in  the  house  of  representatives, 
had  often  been  mentioned  as  a  ground  for  suspicion  of  a  bargain,  he  adds 
the  letters  of  several  individuals,  among  whom  are  John  J.  Crittenden, 
James  Barbour,  and  Gen.  La  Fayettte,  (then  in  this  country,)  showing 
that,  to  all  of  them,  he  had,  at  different  times,  extending  back  to  an  early 
day  in  October,  declared  either  his  preferences  for  Mr.  Adams,  as  be- 
tween him  and  Gren.  Jackson,  or  his  intention  to  vote  for  the  former. 
Soon  after,  a  letter  to  the  same  effect  from  Thomas  H.  Benton  was 
published. 

The  only  additional  testimony  we  will  add,  are  the  declarations  of  Mr. 
Adams  himself  A  few  days  after  the  close  of  his  official  term,  in  an- 
swer to  a  letter  from  a  committee  appointed  by  a  large  meeting  of  citizens 
in  the  state  of  New  Jersey,  expressing  their  approval  of  his  administra- 
tion, and  their  regret  that  he  had  not  been  continued  in  office,  Mr.  Adams 
made  this  solemn  asseveration :  "  Before  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  in  the  pre- 
sence of  our  country,  and  of  Heaven,  I  pronounce  that  charge  totally 
unfounded."  And  again,  on  a  subsequent  occasion,  a  few  years  before 
his  death,  in  an  address  to  a  large  assembly  of  his  fellow-citizens,  he 
repeated,  in  substance,  this  solemn  asseveration. 

The  views  of  Gen.  Jackson  on  the  protection  of  domestic  industry, 
expressed  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Coleman,  in  1824,  and  his  support,  in  the 
senate  of  the  United  States,  of  the  tariff  act  of  that  year,  had  placed  him, 
in  the  public  estimation,  among  the  advocates  of  a  high  protective  tariff. 
The  indications,  however,  of  his  receiving,  at  the  approaching  election, 
the  almost  unanimous  support  of  the  southern  states,  caused  suspicion  on 
the  part  of  some  of  his  northern  friends,  as  to  his  policy  on  this  subject, 
in  case  of  his  election. 

In  January,  1828,  the  senate  of  Indiana,  after  setting  forth,  in  a  pre- 
amble, that  Gen.  Jackson's  friends  in  the  western  states  advocated  his 
election  on  the  ground  of  his  being  friendly  to  internal  improvements 
and  to  a  tariff  for  the  protection  of  American  manufactures ;  and  that 
in  the  southern  states  his  election  was  advocated  on  account  of  his  oppo- 
sition to  these  measures ;  in  order  to  ascertain  his  real  sentiments,  t^t 
they  might  vote  understandingly  at  the  next  presidential  election,  the 
senate  passed  the  following  resolution : 

'-'- Resolved^  That  his  excellency  the  governor  be  requested  to  address 
a  respectful  letter  to  general  Andrew  Jackson,  inviting  him  to  state  ex- 
plicitly, whether  he  favors  that  construction  of  the  constitution  which 
authorizes  congress  to  appropriate  money  for  making  internal  improve- 
ment in  the  several  states ;  and  whether  he  is  in  favor  of  such  a  system 
of  protective  duties  for  the  benefit  of  American  manufactures  as  will,  in  all 


Jackson's  letter  on  the  tarifff,  &c.  401 

cases  where  the  raw  material,  and  the  ability  to  manufacture  it,  exist  in  our 
country,  secure  the  patronage  to  our  own  manufactures,  to  the  exclusion 
of  those  of  foreign  countries ;  and  whether,  if  elected  president  of  the 
United  States,  he  will,  in  his  public  capacity,  recommend,  foster,  and 
support  the  American  system." 

This  resolution  was  accordingly  communicated  by  Gov.  Ray,  who 
received  from  the  general  the  following  letter  : 

"  Hermitage,  February  28,  1828. 

"  Sir  :  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  excellency's  letter  of 
the  30th  ultimo,  inclosing  resolutions  of  the  senate  of  Indiana,  adopted, 
as  it  appears,  with  a  view  of  ascertaining  my  opinions  on  certain  politi- 
cal topics.  The  respect  which  I  entertain  for  the  executive  and  senate 
of  your  state,  excludes  from  my  mind  the  idea  that  an  unfriendly  dispo- 
sition dictated  the  interrogatories  which  are  proposed.  But  I  will  con- 
fess my  regret  at  being  forced,  by  this  sentiment,  to  depart,  in  the 
smallest  degree,  from  the  determination  on  which  I  have  always  acted. 
Not,  sir,  that  I  would  wish  to  conceal  my  opinions  from  the  people  upon 
any  political  or  national  subjects;  but  as  they  were  in  various  ways  pro- 
mulgated in  1824,  I  am  apprehensive  that  my  appearance  before  the 
public,  at  this  time,  may  be  attributed,  as  has  already  been  the  case,  to 
improper  motives. 

"  With  these  remarks,  I  pray  you,  sir,  respectfully  to  state  to  the 
senate  of  Indiana,  that  my  opinions,  at  present^  are  precisely  what  they 
were  in  1823  and  '24,  when  they  were  communicated,  by  letter,  to  Dr. 
Coleman,  of  North  Carolina,  and  when  I  voted  for  the  present  tariif  and 
appropriations  for  internal  improvement.  As  that  letter  was  written  at 
a  time  when  the  divisions  of  sentiment  on  this  subject  were  as  strongly 
marked  as  they  now  are,  in  relation  both  to  the  expediency  and  constitu- 
tionality of  the  system,  it  is  inclosed  herein ;  and  I  beg  the  favor  of 
your  excellency  to  consider  it  a  part  of  this  communication.  The  occa- 
sion out  of  which  it  arose,  was  embraced  with  a  hope  of  preventing  any 
doubt,  misconstruction,  or  any  further  inquiry  respecting  my  opinion  on 
the  subjects  to  which  you  refer — particularly  in  those  states  which  you 
have  designated  as  cherishing  a  policy  at  variance  with  your  own.  To 
preserve  our  invaluable  constitution,  and  to  be  prepared  to  repel  the 
invasions  of  a  foreign  foe,  by  the  practice  of  economy,  and  the  cultiva- 
tion, within  ourselves^  of  the  means  of  national  defense  and  independence, 
should  be,  it  seems  to  me,  the  leading  objects  of  any  system  that  aspires 
to  the  name  of  '  American,'  and  of  every  prudent  administration  of  our 
government. 

"  I  trust,  sir,  that  these  general  views,  taken  in  connection  with  the 

26 


402  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

letter  inclosed,  and  the  votes  referred  to,  will  be  received  as  a  sufficient 
answer  to  the  inquiries  suggested  hy  the  resolutions  of  the  senate.  I 
will  further  observe  to  your  excellency,  that  my  views  of  constitutional 
power  and  American  policy,  were  imbibed,  in  no  small  degree,  in  the 
times  and  from  the  sages  of  the  revolution ;  and  that  my  experience  has 
not  disposed  me  to  forget  their  lessons  :  and,  in  conclusion,  I  will  repeat, 
that  my  opinions  remain  as  they  existed  in  1823  and  '4,  uninfluenced  by 
the  hopes  of  personal  aggrandizement ;  and  that  I  am  sure  they  will  never 
deprive  me  of  the  proud  satisfaction  of  having  always  been  a  sincere 
and  consistent  republican. 

"  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient 
servant,  Andrew  Jackson." 

The  letter  to  Dr.  Coleman  was  written  when  he  was  the  first  time  a 
candidate  for  the  presidency,  and  dated  at  "Washington,  April  26,  1824. 
It  was  published  in  the  Ealeigh  (N.  C.)  Star.  As  this  letter  is  often 
referred  to  in  order  to  show  the  opinions  of  Gen.  Jackson  on  the  much 
controverted  questions  to  which  it  relates,  and  as  his  political  opinions 
were,  and  still  are  held  in  high  estimation  by  a  large  portion  of  the 
American  people,  it  is  deemed  proper  to  insert  here  copious  extracts 
from  the  letter : 

''  You  ask  my  opinion  on  the  tariff.  I  answer,  that  I  am  in  favor  of 
a  judicious  examination  and  revision  of  it,  and  so  far  as  the  tariff  bill 
before  us  embraces  the  design  of  fostering,  protecting,  and  preserving 
within  ourselves  the  means  of  national  defense  and  independence,  par- 
ticularly in  a  state  of  war,  I  would  advocate  and  support  it.  The  expe- 
rience of  the  late  war  ought  to  teach  us  a  lesson,  and  one  never  to  be 
forgotten.  If  our  liberty  and  republican  form  of  government,  procured 
for  us  by  our  revolutionary  fathers,  are  worth  the  blood  and  treasure  at 
which  they  were  obtained,  it  surely  is  our  duty  to  protect  and  defend 
them.  *  *  *  Heaven  smiled  upon,  and  gave  us  liberty  and  indepen- 
dence. That  same  Providence  has  blessed  us  with  the  means  of  national 
independence  and  national  defense.  If  we  omit  or  refuse  to  use  the 
gifts  which  he  has  extended  to  us,  we  deserve  not  the  continuation  of  his 
blessings.  He  has  filled  our  mountains  and  our  plains  with  minerals — 
with  lead,  iron,  and  copper ;  and  given  us  climate  and  soil  for  the  grow- 
ing of  hemp  and  wool.  These  being  the  grand  materials  of  our  national 
defense,  they  ought  to  have  extended  to  them  adequate  and  fair  protec- 
tion, that  our  own  manufactories  and  laborers  may  be  placed  on  a  fair 
competition  with  those  of  Europe,  and  that  we  may  have,  within  our 
country,  a  supply  of  those  leading  and  important  articles,  so  essential  in 


THE  "woolens  bill."  403 

war.  *  *  *  This  tariff — I  mean  a  judicious  one — possesses  more 
fanciful  than  real  danger.  I  will  ask,  what  is  the  real  situation  of  the 
agriculturalist  ?  Where  has  the  American  farmer  a  market  for  his  sur- 
plus products  ?  3^]xcept  for  cotton,  he  has  neither  a  foreign  or  home 
market.  Does  not  this  clearly  prove,  when  there  is  no  market  either  at 
home  or  abroad,  that  there  is  too  much  labor  employed  in  a:griculture ; 
and  that  the  channels  for  labor  should  be  multiplied  ?  Common  sense, 
at  once,  points  out  the  remedy.  Draw  from  agriculture  this  superabun- 
dant labor ;  employ  it  in  mechanism  and  manufactures ;  thereby  creating 
a  home  market  for  your  bread  stuffs,  and  distributing  labor  to  the  most 
profitable  account ;  and  benefits  to  the  country  will  result.  Take  from 
agriculture  in  the  United  States,  six  hundred  thousand  men,  women  and 
children,  and  you  will  at  once  give  a  home  market  for  more  bread  stuffs 
than  all  Europe  now  furnishes  us.  In  short,  sir,  we  have  been  too  long 
subject  to  the  policy  of  the  British  merchants.  It  is  time  that  we 
should  become  a  little  more  Americanized;  and,  instead  of  feeding  the 
paupers  and  laborers  of  England,  feed  our  own ;  or  else,  in  a  short  time,  by 
continuing  our  present  policy,  we  shall  all  be  rendered  paupers  ourselves. 

"  It  is,  therefore,  my  opinion,  that  a  careful  and  judicious  tariff  is 
much  wanted,  to  pay  our  national  debt,  and  afford  us  the  means  of  that 
defense  within  ourselves,  on  which  the  safety  of  our  country  and  liberty 
depends ;  and  last,  though  not  least,  give  a  proper  distribution  to  our 
labor,  which  must  prove  beneficial  to  the  happiness,  independence  and 
wealth  of  the  community. 

"  This  is  a  short  outline  of  my  opinions,  generally,  on  the  subject  of 
your  inquiry ;  and  believing  them  correct,  and  calculated  to  further  the 
prosperity  and  happiness  of  my  country,  I  declare  to  you,  I  would  not 
barter  them  for  any  office  or  situation  of  a  temporal  character,  that 
could  be  given  me."  ^ 

These  sentiments  were,  in  1828,  common  to  very  large  majorities  in 
the  eastern,  middle,  and  western  states;  and  but  for  the  declarations 
of  Gen.  Jackson  on  the  subject,  he  would  probably  have  failed  of  an 
election. 


CHAPTEE  XXXI. 

THE     "  WOOLENS    BILL." HARRISBURG    CONVENTION. TARIFF     OF    1828. 

At  an  early  period  of  the  session  of  1826-27,  a  bill  was  introduced 
proposing  to  increase  the  duty  on  wool  and  woolen  manufacturea 
Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1824,  the  English  prosecu- 


404  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ted  their  business  with  unusual  activity,  and  flooded  our  country  with 
their  fabrics,  which  were  sold  to  great  profit.  Anticipating  sufficient 
protection  from  that  act,  and  encouraged  by  the  success  of  British  manu- 
facturers, large  investments  were  made  by  our  citizens  in  manufactories. 
The  quantity  of  British  goods  imported  having  vastly  exceeded  the 
demand,  they  had  been  disposed  of  by  forced  sales  in  this  country,  at  a 
great  sacrifice  to  the  foreign  manufacturer,  and  to  the  very  serious 
embarrassment  of  the  domestic  manufacture.  Against  such  a  state  of 
things,  the  latter  had  no  protection  ;  and  memorials  on  the  subject,  and 
petitions  for  relief,  were  addressed  to  congress. 

The  inadequacy  of  the  duties  consisted  in  their  nature,  and  in  the 
manner  in  which  they  were  determined.  Being  ad  valorem  duties,  or 
duties  laid  according  to  the  value  of  the  article,  the  goods  were  invoiced 
at  prices  below  their  real  value  even  in  England.  By  this  means,  the 
revenue  was  defrauded,  and  protection  to  our  manufacturers  was  defeated. 
It  was  the  policy  of  the  British  manufacturers,  after  supplying  other 
markets,  to  throw  their  remaining  surplus  into  our  markets,  to  be  sold 
at  such  prices  as  could  be  obtained.  And  although  these  prices  were 
sometimes  below  cost,  the  loss  was  more  than  compensated  by  the  depres- 
sion of  American  manufactures,  which  was  to  the  English  manufacturer 
an  object  of  great  importance. 

By  the  tariff  of  1824,  the  duty  on  imported  woolen  goods  had  been 
raised  8  per  cent.,  and  on  wool,  15  per  cent.  No  wool  was  exported 
hence  to  Europe;  but  more  than  one- third  of  the  quantity  manufac- 
tured here  was  imported  from  European  countries,  subject  to  a  duty  of 
30  per  cent.,  while  the  manufacturer  enjoyed  a  mere  nominal  protection 
of  33  1-3  per  cent,  ad  valorem  •  the  duty  being  virtually  determined  by 
the  party  paying  it.  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that,  in  a  large  manu- 
facturing country  like  England,  the  products  of  labor  would  be  measured 
by  the  exact  extent  of  the  demand.  The  surplus  was  sent  to  the  United 
States.  By  the  removal  of  this  surplus  from  the  home  market,  the 
English  manufacturers  had  been  enabled  to  maintain  high  prices  on  the 
residue,  while  the  value  of  all  similar  goods  had  been  reduced  to  the 
injury  of  the  American  manufacturer. 

The  manufacturers,  however,  did  not  ask  either  for  a  reduction  or  an 
increase  of  the  duty  on  wool.  Nor  did  they  ask  for  an  increase  of  the 
ad  valorem  duty  on  woolen  goods,  if  regulations  existed  which  should 
effectually  prevent  the  evasion  of  the  laws.  This  could  be  effected  only 
by  changing  the  mode  of  determining  the  ad  valorem  duty,  or  by  adopt- 
ing a  minimum  duty,  which  it  was  impossible  to  evade.  In  many  large 
establishments  in  New  England,  half  the  machinery  was  said  to  be  idle; 
and  some  which  had  been  comjleted  was  not  to  be  put  into  operation, 
until  it  could  be  done  under  more  favorable  auspices. 


THE    "  WOOLENS    BILL."  405 

On  the  27tli  of  January,  1827,  Mr.  Mallary,  of  Vtrmont,  chairman 
of  the  committee  on  manufactures,  reported  a  bill  "  for  the  alteration  of 
the  acts  imposing  duties  on  imports,"  commonly  called  the  "  woolens 
bill."  This  bill  proposed  no  change  in  the  nominal  rate  of  duty  on 
woolen  manufactures,  which  was  33  1-3  per  cent,  ad  valorem;  but  it 
provided  for  estimating  the  duties  on  what  was  called  the  "  minimum" 
principle. 

Goods  manufactured  in  whole  or  in  part  of  wool,  and  not  exceeding 
in  value  40  cents  the  square  yard  at  the  place  whence  imported,  must  be 
deemed  to  have  cost  40  cents,  and  charged  with  the  present  rate  of  duty. 
If  the  value  exceeded  40  cents,  and  did  not  exceed  $2  50,  they  must 
be  deemed  to  have  cost  $2  50,  and  charged  accordingly ;  and  if  they 
exceeded  $2  50,  they  must  be  deemed  to  have  cost  $4,  and  charged 
accordingly. 

Unmanufactured  wool,  then  subject  to  a  duty  of  30  per  cent.,  was  to 
be  charged,  after  June,  1828,  35  per  cent.,  and  after  June,  1829,  40 
per  cent.  And  all  wool  exceeding  in  value  10  cents,  and  not  exceeding 
40  cents  per  pound,  was  to  be  deemed  to  have  cost  40  cents,  and  to  be 
subject  to  these  rates  of  duty.  Wool  less  in  value  than  10  cents,  was, 
by  the  act  of  1824,  15  per  cent.,  on  which  no  alteration  was  proposed. 

The  division  of  the  house  upon  this  measure  was  rather  of  a  geogra- 
phical than  of  a  party  character.  A  large  portion  of  the  friends  of 
Gen.  Jackson  in  the  northern  states,  were  decided  protectionists,  among 
whom  were  M'Lane,  of  Delaware,  and  Buchanan  and  Ingham,  of  Penn- 
sylvania. These,  gentlemen,  however,  as  well  as  some  of  the  friends  of 
the  administration,  were  opposed  to  certain  provisions  of  the  bill.  As 
the  principal  cause  of  the  complaint  of  the  manufacturers  was  alleged  to 
be  the  evasion  of  the  duties  contemplated  by  the  act  of  1824,  so  high  a 
duty  as  some  goods  would  necessarily  be  subject  to,  under  the  bill,  was 
not  called  for.  The  scale  of  minimums  was  not  sufficiently  graduated : 
the  "  strides  were  too  gigantic;"  especially  that  from  40  cents  to  $2  50. 
A  large  proportion  of  goods  ranging  between  these  prices  would  be 
prohibited ;  and  they  were  of  the  grade  usually  consumed  by  the  labor- 
ing classes.  And  this  prohibition  would  diminish  the  revenue.  .Goods, 
for  example,  of  a  grade  costing  50  cents,  would  be  subject,  if  imported, 
to  the  same  duty  as  those  entered  at  $2  50,  viz.  :  83  cts.  Few  goods 
worth  less  than  $2  would  be  imported. 

At  an  early  period  of  the  discussion,  therefore,  an  amendment  was 
offered,  proposing  to  moderate  the  scale  of  minimum  valuation,  by 
inserting  a  minimum  of  $1  50  between  those  of  40  cents  and  $2  50. 
The  friends  of  the  bill  as  first  reported,  contended  that  this  amendment 
would  in  a  great  measure,  defeat  the  object  aimed  at.     A  great  part  of 


406  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  goods  imported  came  within  the  range  of  $2;  and  the  amount 
excluded,  if  this  minimum  should  be  adopted,  would  not  be  an  equiva- 
lent for  the  evasion  of  duty  on  those  admitted. 

Mr.  Mallary  said  the  bill  would  not  affect  the  revenue  as  was  appre- 
hended. The  importations  would  not  be  essentially  diminished.  For- 
eign manufacturers  would  only  be  compelled  to  change  the  quality  of 
their  cloths  with  reference  to  these  minimums.  Instead  of  sending 
goods  of  all  grades  of  prices,  they  would  send  but  the  three  grades  of 
40  cents,  S2  50,  and  $4,  or  nearly  these  prices.  Some  would  come  in 
at  prices  between  $3  and  $4,  and  even  below  $3,  and  be  rated  on  the 
minimum  of  $4.  Upon  the  lower  grades  the  bill  would  operate  more 
powerfully,  as  it  was  designed  to  do.  And  although  some  of  these 
should  be  excluded,  machinery  was  ready,  and  standing  still,  sufficient 
to  supply  all  parts  of  the  country  in  ninety  days ;  so  that  there  was  no 
ground  for  apprehending  a  monopoly. 

There  was  another  mode  of  evading  duties.  Goods  worth  $4  the 
square  yard  were  imported  in  an  unfinished  state,  invoiced  at  less  than 
$2  50,  sent  to  one  of  the  foreign  finishing  establishments,  and,  at  a  very 
small  expense,  transformed  into  cloths  worth  $4.  The  bill  would  leave 
but  three  points  for  the  appraisers  to  regard,  instead  of  the  hundred,  as 
under  existing  regulations,  and  insure  the  collection  of  the  duties. 
Thus  would  the  revenue  be  guarded  against  fraud,  protection  secured 
to  the  domestic  manufacturer,  and  employment  given  to  the  sixty  mil- 
lions of  capital  invested,  and  many  thousands  of  industrious  citizens. 

The  amendment,  however,  introducing  the  additional  minimum  of 
$1  50,  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  82  to  30. 

Among  those  who  took  an  active  part  in  the  debate  on  this  bill,  were 
Messrs.  Mallary,  of  Vermont,  Dwight  and  Davis,  of  Massachusetts, 
Pearce,  of  Rhode  Island,  Bartlett,  of  New  Hampshire,  Stewart,  of 
Pennsylvania,  Barney,  of  Maryland,  and  Storrs,  of  New  York,  in  favor 
of  the  bill;  and  Messrs.  M'Lane,  of  Delaware,  Ingham  and  Buchanan, 
of  Pennsylvania,  Cambreleng,  of  New  York,  Hamilton  and  Mitchell, 
of  South  Carolina,  Stevenson,  of  Virginia,  Bryan,  of  North  Carolina, 
and  "Wickliffe,  of  Kentucky,  against  it. 

The  necessity  of  adopting  some  regulation  to  enforce  the  collection 
of  duties,  was  generally  admitted;  and,  with  a  view  to  this  object, 
several  amendments  were  proposed  by  the  opponents  of  the  bill  as  sub- 
stitutes for  the  minimum  provision,  but  without  success. 

Mr.  M'Lane  admitted  that  the  woolen  manufacture  was  suffering  a 
severe  depression,  the  cause  of  which,  he  said,  was  well  known.  The 
act  of  1824  had  induced  large  investments  of  capital  in  this  branch  of 
manufacture ;  and  double  the  usual  quantity  of  domestic  woolens  had 


THE    "  WOOLENS    BILL."  407 

been  thrown  into  the  American  market.  At  the  same  time,  the  opening 
of  the  trade  of  the  South  American  states  had  led  the  British  manufac- 
turers largely  to  increase  their  capital  to  supply  that  market.  Having 
overestimated  the  demand,  and  having  been  met  there  by  a  successful 
competition  on  the  part  of  our  manufacturers,  they  soon  found  themselves 
in  possession  of  a  large  surplus,  which  they  sent  to  this  country  to  be 
sold  at  almost  any  price  it  would  bring.  The  flourishing  state  of  the 
woolen  manufacture,  soon  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1824,  proved 
the  sufficienc}?'  of  that  act  as  a  measure  of  protection,  if  its  intentions 
were  fulfilled.  And  he  was  willing  to  go  to  the  full  extent  of  it,  by 
substituting  a  specific  for  an  ad  valorem  duty. 

The  principle  of  protection  also  was  to  some  extent  discussed.  Mr. 
Stewart,  of  Pennsylvania,  supported  the  bill  from  its  supposed  benefits 
to  agriculture ;  and  he  regretted  to  find  himself  in  opposition  to  two 
of  his  most  distinguished  colleagues,  (Buchanan  and  Ingham,)  with 
whom  he  had  cooperated  in  support  of  the  tariff  of  1824;  wliich,  in  his 
judgment,  was  not  more  important  to  the  agricultural  interest  of  Penn- 
sylvania than  the  bill  under  consideration.  This  bill  would  create  a 
home  market  for  our  farmers,  which  no  changes  in  Europe  could  affect, 
and  prevent  the  importation  of  foreign  agricultural  produce  to  the  neglect 
of  our  own.  "  For,"  said  Mr.  S.,  "  what  is  the  importation  of  cloth 
but  the  importation  of  agricultural  produce  ?  Is  not  cloth  the  product 
of  agriculture?  Analyse  it;  resolve  it  into  its  constituent  elements, 
and  what  is  it  ?  Wool  and  labor.  What  produces  the  wool  ?  Grass 
and  grain.  And  what  supports  labor,'  but  bread  and  meat  ?  Cloth  is 
composed  of  the  grass  and  grain  that  feed  the  sheep,  and  the  bread  and 
meat  that  support  the  laborer  who  converts  the  wool  into  cloth.  And 
is  it  policy  for  this  country,  where  seven-eighths  of  the  population  are 
agriculturists,  to  import  annually  ten  millions  of  dollars'  worth  of  grass 
and  grain,  and  bread  and  meat,  converted  into  cloth  ? 

"  That  the  importation  of  cloth  is  the  importation  of  agricultural 
produce,  may  be  regarded  as  a  novel  doctrine ;  and  to  assert  that  thou- 
sands of  tons  of  grass  and  corn  are  annually  transported  from  Ohio  and 
Kentucky  to  the  Atlantic  markets,  would  be  considered  no  less  strange ; 
but  it  was  not  less  true.  It  is  transported,  not  in  its  original  shape, 
but  like  the  cloth,  in  a  changed  and  modified  condition.  It  is  animated 
— converted  into  live  stock,  cattle  and  horses.  Each  of  these  animals 
carries  five  or  six  tons  of  hay,  and  fifty  or  one  hundred  bushels  of  corn 
for  consumption  to  the  markets  of  the  east,  which  it  is  the  policy  of 
this  bill  to  sustain  and  to  increase.  Hence,  it  is  a  bill  for  the  benefit  of 
agriculture.  There  is  no  foundation  for  the  objection  that  it  will  tax  the 
farmer  and  ruin  agriculture.     This  argument  has  been  urged  a  thousand 


408  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

times  against  this  policy.  It  was  urged  against  the  minimum  of  twenty- 
five  cents  per  yard,  imposed  by  the  tariff  of  1816,  upon  cotton.  "What 
has  been  the  effect  of  that  minimum  duty  upon  cotton  ?  It  afforded 
effectual  protection  in  that  case  as  it  would  in  this.  It  has  established 
the  manufacture  in  this  country ;  and  has  it  taxed  the  farmer  ?  No ; 
it  has  furnished  the  country  a  better  fabric  for  one-half  the  sum  it  cost 
before.  Nor  is  this  all :  it  has  supplied  a  home  market  to  the  southern 
planter  for  1 80,000  bales  of  cotton,  worth  $7,000,000.  And  this  market 
is  not  only  permanent  but  increasing ;  thus  verifying  every  anticipation 
of  its  friends,  and  affording  a  most  triumphant  refutation  of  every  ob- 
jection urged  by  its  enemies.  It  has  furnished  facts  and  experience  in 
opposition  to  speculation  and  theory.  And  similar  effects  will  result 
from  a  similar  policy  in  regard  to  wool." 

In  speaking  of  the  advantage  of  protection  to  manufactures  in  creat- 
ing a  home  market,  Mr.  Stewart  said,  that  already  the  New  England 
states  had  imported,  in  a  single  year,  629,000  barrels  of  flour  from  the 
agricultural  states  for  consumption  in  their  manufacturing  establish- 
ments, while  all  Europe  had  taken  less  than  57,000  barrels.  The  ten- 
dency of  this  policy  was  also,  not  to  create,  but  to  prevent  monopolies, 
and  benefit  the  farmer.  It  would  increase  the  number  of  woolen  estab- 
lishments and  the  quantity  of  manufactured  articles  ;  and  this  increased 
competition  would  reduce  the  price  of  the  manufactured  fabrics,  while 
the  increased  demand  for  the  raw  material  and  breadstuffs  would  as 
certainly  enhance  the  value  of  these  articles  of  agricultural  produce. 

In  illustrating  this  argument,  Mr.  S.  referred  to  the  woolen  establish- 
ment at  Steubenville,  which  consumed  annually  50,000  dollars  worth  of 
the  agricultural  produce  of  the  surrounding  country.  Now  if,  by  reject- 
ing this  bill,  that  establishment  should  be  destroyed,  what  would  be  the 
effect  on  the  farmers  ?  It  would  not  only  destroy  this  market,  but  in- 
crease the  quantity  of  agricultural  produce,  by  converting  customers 
into  rivals — consumers  into  producers  of  agricultural  products.  But 
suppose  that,  by  passing  the  bill,  two  or  three  other  establishments 
should  be  put  into  operation  in  that  place,  which  he  stated  from  personal 
knowledge  would  be  done ;  would  this  impose  a  tax  on  the  farmer  for 
the  benefit  of  the  manufacturer  ?  "Would  th -s  create  monopolies  ?  Pre- 
cisely the  reverse. 

He  also  controverted  the  idea  that  the  encouragement  of  manufactures 
was  injurious  to  commerce.  He  held  it  to  be  a  sound  political  axiom, 
that  the  prosperity  of  commerce  would  always  be  in  proportion  to  the 
prosperity  of  agriculture  and  manufactures.  Commerce  was  properly 
called  the  handmaid  of  agriculture  and  manufactures.  Her  legitimate 
office  was  to  carry  and  exchange  the  surplus  productions  of  one  country  for 


THE    "  WOOLENS    BILL.  409 

the  money  or  surplus  productions  of  another.  Destroy  agriculture  and 
manufactures  and  commerce  would  be  destroyed. 

Nor  would  this  measure  diminish  the  revenue.  If  less  cloth  should 
be  imported,  the  importation  of  other  articles  would  be  increased.  The 
best  plan  to  increase  the  revenue,  was  to  increase  the  prosperity  of  the 
country — to  increase  its  ability  to  purchase  and  consume  foreign  pro- 
ductions. He  illustrated  this  by  again  referring  to  the  establishment  at 
Steubenville,  where  there  were  annually  consumed  imported  goods  to 
the  value  of  $30,000,  on  which  were  paid  duties  to  the  amount  of 
$10,000. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  he  had  ever  been  the  friend  of  what  had  been 
called  the  tariflf  policy  ;  and  that  the  new  doctrines  of  political  economy 
preached  in  England  had  no  charms  for  him.  They  had  never  been 
practiced  by  British  statesmen ;  and  there  was  much  reason  to  believe 
they  had  been  manufactured,  not  for  home  consumption,  but  for  foreign 
markets.  [The  doctrines  alluded  to  by  Mr.  B.  were  those  of  free  trade, 
by  the  profession  of  which  Great  Britain  might  influence  other  nations 
to  adopt  the  policy,  while  she  in  practice  rejected  it.] 

But  while  he  made  this  avowal  of  his  opinion,  he  was  not  ready  to  go 
to  any  length  manufacturers  might  desire,  in  prohibiting  the  importa- 
tion of  foreign  goods.  Other  interests  had  e(][ual  claims  to  protection. 
He  admitted  the  depressed  condition  of  the  woolen  manufacture,  and  the 
necessity  of  extending  to  it  additional  protection.  One  principal  cause 
of  this  depression  was,  that,  since  the  passage  of  our  tariff  of  1824,  the 
British  government  had  reduced  the  duty  on  the  importation  of  foreign 
wool,  from  six  pence  sterling  to  a  penny  sterling  per  pound.  By  this 
decrease  of  duty  on  the  raw  material,  the  cost  of  the  manufactured  ar- 
ticle had  been  diminished,  and  enabled  the  English  manufacturer  to 
compete  with  the  American  manufacturer  in  our  market,  with  greater 
advantage  than  formerly.  This  cause  was  permanent  in  its  nature,  and 
would  continue,  until  removed  by  legislation.  ^  The  other  cause — that 
of  throwing  upon  us  the  surplus  of  British  goods  designed  for  the  South 
American  market — was  an  evil  which  would  soon  cure  itself.  Such 
fluctuations  in  trade  could  not  be  controlled  by  legislative  provision. 
What  he  was  now  willing  to  do,  was  to  give  the  protection  fully  and 
fairly  intended  by  the  tariff  of  1824.  The  government  was  pledged  to 
continue  this  protection.  But  our  manufacturers  had  in  a  measure  lost 
it,  in  consequence  of  the  act  of  parliament  which  enabled  their  foreign 
competitors  to  manufacture  cheaper  than  they  could  do  in  1824.  He 
was  willing,  therefore,  to  increase  the  rates  of  duty  sufficiently  to  coun- 
tervail the  reduction  of  the  British  duty  on  foreign  wool ;  but  he  would 
go  no  farther. 


410  THE   AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

'  Mr.  Archer,  of  Yirginia,  said  the  strong  ground  for  supporting  this 
bill  had  been  stated  by  a  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  (Mr.  Davis,) 
who  spoke  some  days  ago.  It  was,  that  the  recent  i eduction  of  the 
British  duty  on  the  import  of  wool,  had  ir  effect  taken  away  a  part  of 
the  protection  which  the  existing  rates  oi  duty  were  intended  to  afford ; 
and  it  was  estimated  that  sixteen  per  ^l^nt.  increase  was  necessary  to  com- 
pensate for  the  disadvantage  thr'^  occasioned  to  the  American  manufac- 
turer. This  argument  amounted,  in  principle,  to  this,  that  the  discharge 
of  a  foreign  tax,  was  a  sufficient  reason  for  our  adopting  it.  We  were 
asked  to  put  on  our  importation  and  consumption  a  new  charge  equal  to 
the  reduction  of  the  British  duty  on  imported  wool,  for  the  farther  pro- 
tection of  the  manufacturers. 

Of  the  distress  of  the  manufacturing  interest  he  had  no  doubt.  It 
had  recently  received  the  aid  of  a  tariff;  and  the  administering  of  this 
stimulus  was  always  attended  with  distress.  An  excess  of  employment 
had  been  attracted  to  the  favored  pursuits ;  and  the  market  had  become 
overstocked  with  their  products.  Whatever  might  be  the  enlargement 
of  a  market  given  by  a  tariff,  it  would  be  glutted,  and  distress  would  fol- 
low. The  present  distress  of  the  manufacturers,  caused  or  aggravated  by 
the  tariff  of  1824,  was  therefore  a  reason,  not  for,  but  against  this  form 
of  relief,  which  would  in  the  end  produce  a  wider  and  more  aggravated 
suffering. 

The  only  argument  by  which  protection  to  any  particular  interest,  at 
the  public  expense,  could  be  vindicated  in  justice,  did  not  apply  in  the 
present  case.  It  was,  that  the  protection  would  redeem  itself — that  the 
article  would  eventually  be  rendered  cheaper  by  the  tax.  No  one  would 
defend  a  tax  merely  to  favor  a  particular  interest,  if  there  were  no  ex- 
pectation that  the  public  would  be  indemnified.  Such  it  had  been  said, 
was  the  result  of  protection  in  the  case  of  coarse  cottons.  But  was  it 
so?  It  was  true  that  they  were  lower  than  they  were  when  the  duty  was 
imposed ;  but  were  they  lower  than  they  would  have  been  if  they  had 
been  left  without  protection  ?  If  they  were  as  cheap  as  we  could  be 
supplied  with  the  foreign  article,  why  not  repeal  the  tax  ?  To  this  the 
manufacturers  would  not  consent.  For  this  reason,  he  did  not  believe 
that  we  did  or  could  successfully  compete  with  others  in  foreign  markets. 

But  even  if  it  were  true  in  relation  to  coarse  cottons,  it  would  not  be 
so  in  regard  to  woolens.  In  the  manufacture  of  these,  a  smaller  pro- 
portion of  the  labor  was  performed  by  machinery  ;  and  the  manual  labor 
required  was  of  a  more  experienced  and  expensive  kind.  And  for  an- 
other reason  :  the  cost  of  the  raw  material  entered  more  largely  into  the 
prices  of  woolens,  than  into  those  of  cottons.  And  wool  raised  at  home 
must  always  be  much  higher  than  that  which  could  be  obtained  from 
abjoad.     Our  country  was  not  so  favorable  for  raising  sheep  as  Eng- 


THE    "woolens   bill."  411 

land  and  other  countries.  This  disadvantage  of  the  greater  cost  of  the 
raw  material  could  never  be  avoided,  and,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
larger  proportion  of  labor  required  in  woolen  as  compared  with  cotton 
goods,  was  decisive  as  to  the  relative  cost  of  the  domestic  and  the  foreign 
fabric.  With  us,  woolens  must  be  a  forced  fabric,  and  could  never  be 
made  as  cheap  as  they  could  be  imported. 

A  farther  argument  in  favor  of  the  bill  was  the  enlarged  market  which 
the  extension  of  the  manufacture  was  expected  to  produce.  This  also 
Mr.  A.  denied.  There  would  be  no  enlargement  of  the  market — ^no  ad- 
dition to  the  amount  or  value  of  sales — no  augmentation  of  the  quanti- 
ty, or  enhancement  of  the  prices  of  the  products  of  other  branches  of 
industry.  Market  could  be  obtained  only  in  the  proportion  in  which  it 
was  given.  By  purchasing  at  the  north  what  had  been  heretofore  ob- 
tained abroad,  was  surrendering,  to  just  that  amount,  our  present  market 
abroad.  It  would  be  merely  a  transfer  of  market;  for  what  would  be 
added  to  the  domestic,  would  be  deducted  from  the  foreign  market. 
Markets  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  manufactories  would  be  im- 
proved by  their  extension :  and  this  had  been  confounded  with  a  general 
improvement  of  the  market.  The  market  of  the  country  would,  in  fact, 
suffer  ;  for  the  whole  value  of  the  national  exchanges  would  be  reduced 
in  an  amount  equal  to  the  tax  imposed  by  the  bill. 

It  had  been  said,  that  the  revei^ue  would  not  be  diminished.  If  our 
money  was  taken,  our  understandings  ought  not  to  be  insulted.  On  such 
an  argument,  he  declined  comment.  And  when  the  revenue  had  suffered 
reduction,  the  resource  would  be  imposts  on  other  imports. 

Much  had  been  heard  of  the  extension  of  protection  to  other  interests 
than  the  manufacturing.  How  could  navigation  and  commerce  be  said 
to  be  protected  when  we  were  holding  out  a  permanent  invitation  to  the 
removal  of  all  discriminating  duties  ?  By  the  removal  of  duties  on 
foreign  shipping,  our  navigation  had  not  been  impaired.  Scarcely  more 
necessary  were  duties  for  the  protection  of  agriculture.  Of  this,  the 
proof  was  found  in  the  readiness  of  our  agriculturists  to  concur  in  the 
removal  of  the  protective  duties.  They  not  only  did  not  ask,  they  re- 
nounced protection,  and  were  willing  to  annul  every  duty  which  wore 
the  semblance  of  this  character.  The  benefits  of  the  proposed  measure 
would  be  confined  to  a  small  number  of  persons — capitalists,  who  had 
experienced  a  diminished  rate  of  profits  from  their  business. 

But  we  are  not  allowed  to  extend  the  remarks  of  speakers  on  this  bill. 
So  far  as  they  embraced  the  general  subject  of  protection,  they  do  not 
essentially  differ  from  those  which  will  be  found  in  the  debates  on  the 
tariff  bills  of  1824  and  1828,  in  other  parts  of  this  work. 

On  the  10th  of  February,  the  bill  passed  the  house,  106  to  95,  and 
was  sent  to  the  senate,  where,  for  the  want  of  time  to  act  upon  it  at 


412  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

that  session,  it  was  laid  upon  the  table,  February  28,  by  the  casting 
vote  of  the  vice-president. 

Disappointed  in  their  expectations  by  the  defeat  of  the  "  woolens  bill," 
the  manufacturers  early  resolved  on  a  renewal  of  their  application  to 
congress  for  relief.  At  a  meeting  of  the  "  Pennsylvania  society  for  the 
promotion  of  manufactures  and  the  mechanic  arts,"  held  on  the  14th  of 
May,  1827,  Charles  J.  Ingersoll  presiding,  in  view  of  "the  depressed 
state  of  the  woolen  manufacture,  and  of  the  market  for  wool,  together 
with  its  injurious  effect  on  other  departments  of  industry,  and  on  the 
general  welfare,"  resolutions  were  adopted  calling  on  the  farmers  and 
manufacturers,  and  the  friends  of  both  branches  of  industry,  to  hold  con- 
ventions in  their  respective  states,  and  to  appoint  at  least  five  delegates 
froni  each  state,  to  meet  in  general  convention  at  Harrisburg,  on  the 
30th  day  of  July,  to  deliberate  on  measures  proper  to  be  taken  in  the 
present  posture  of  their  affairs,  and  appointing  a  committee  of  twenty- 
seven,  to  frame  an  address  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

In  their  address,  the  committee  discussed  the  policy  of  protection,  and 
set  forth  the  causes  of  the  depression  of  the  manufacturing  interest,  and 
the  effect  of  this  depression  upon  the  other  great  interests  of  the  country. 
Above  80  per  cent,  of  the  population  was  engaged  in  the  pursuits  of 
agriculture ;  and  for  the  large  surplus  of  the  produce  of  the  soil,  there 
was  no  market  at  home  or  abroad.  The  want  of  a  market  operated 
severely  upon  the  middle  and  western  states.  Europe  no  longer  wanted 
their  grain  and  flour,  and  her  ports  were  closed  against  them,  while 
these  states  consumed  of  the  manufactures  of  Europe  to  the  amount  of 
$10,000,000  or  $12,000,000  in  value  annually. 

To  show  the  effects  of  the  closing  of  the  European  ports  against  our 
bread-stuffs,  the  amount  of  our  exports  of  bread-stuffs  during  the  year 
1825,  were  compared  with  the  amount  exported  while  our  wheat  and 
flour  had  a  foreign  demand.  It  appeared  that,  while  our  population  had 
nearly  trebled  since  1796,  the  exports  of  all  the  articles  produced,  ex- 
clusive of  cotton  and  tobacco,  had  diminished  nearly  one-third.  The 
arguments  presented  by  the  committee  in  favor  of  the  desired  protection 
and  of  the  general  policy,  were  substantially  the  same  as  those  offered 
in  previous  discussions  of  the  same  subject. 

In  pursuance  of  the  call  of  the  "  Pennsylvania  society  for  the  pro- 
motion of  manufactures,"  &c.,  state  conventions  were  held,  and  delegates 
appointed  to  the  national  convention  at  Harrisburg.  From  the  pro- 
ceedings of  these  state  conventions,  and  the  names  of  the  persons  who 
participated  in  them,  there  seem^'  to  have  been  greater  unanimity  at 
that  time  among  the  people  of  the  northern  states  on  the  subject  of  the 
tariff  than  at  a  later  period. 


HARRISBURG    CONVENTION.  413 

The  New  York  state  convention  was  held  at  Albany.  Jesse  Buel, 
of  Albany,  was  president  of  the  convention ;  and  Edmund  H.  Pendleton, 
of  Dutchess,  and  David  E.  Evans,  of  Genesee,  were  secretaries.  From 
the  published  proceedings  it  appears,  that  "  the  convention  was  address- 
ed by  Col.  Young,  of  Saratoga,  Gen.  Van  Rensselear,  of  Columbia,  and 
other  gentlemen,  in  support  of  the  purposes  for  which  it  had  assembled." 
Among  the  delegates  appointed  to  the  Harrisburg  convention,  were 
some  of  the  most  prominent  citizens  of  the  state,  viz :  Eleazer  Lord, 
Peter  Sharp,  Gen.  James  Tallmadge,  Jacob  R.  Yan  Rensselaer,  Samuel 
M.  Hopkins,  Samuel  Young,  John  B.  Yates,  Alvan  Stewart,  Victory 
Birdseye,  Enos  T.  Throop,  Francis  Granger,  Philip  Church,  and  several 
others,  together  with  the  officers  of  the  convention. 

A  long  series  of  resolutions  was  adopted,  of  which  we  copy  the  fol- 
lowing as  expressive  of  the  common  sentiments  of  the  people,  at  that 
period,  of  the  diflferent  political  parties  in  the  northern  portion  of  the 
union : 

Resolved^  That  agriculture,  manufactures  and  commerce,  are  social 
pursuits,  and  flourish  best  in  the  society  of  each  other ;  and  that  equal 
protection  by  th9  government  is  due  to  each. 

"  Resolved^  That  as  wool  and  the  woolen  trade  were  the  principal 
foundation  of  the  prosperity,  first  of  the  Netherlands,  and  afterwards  of 
England ;  so  the  people  of  the  northern  and  middle  states  ought  to  look 
to  the  same  article  as  an  unfailing  source  of  wealth  to  their  agricultural, 
manufacturing,  and  commercial  interests. 

''  Resolved^  That,  inasmuuch  as  the  staple  agricultural  products  of 
the  south,  to  wit,  cotton,  tobacco,  and  rice,  are  admitted  into  the  ports 
of  Europe  without  competition  in  their  production  in  that  part  of  the 
world  ;  and  while  both  competition  and  prohibitory  laws  operate  to  ex- 
clude from  European  markets  the  breadstufis,  provisions,  and  manufac- 
tures of  the  northern,  middle  and  western  states,  we  deem  it  unkind  in 
our  southern  brethren  to  oppose  the  passage  of  laws  which  are  calculated 
to  create  a  home  market  for  our  agricultural  productions,  and  to  promote 
our  national  wealth  and  prosperity." 

There  were  in  the  national  convention  at  Harrisburg,  95  delegates 
from  the  following  states :  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  Vermont,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Ohio.  Joseph  Ritner,  of 
Pennsylvania,  was  chosen  president ;  Jesse  Buel,  of  New  York,  and 
Frisby  Tilghman,  ot  Maryland,  vice-presidents ;  and  William  Hal- 
STED,  Jun,  of  New  Jersey,  and  Redwood  Fisher,  of  Pennsylvania, 
secretaries. 

Committees  upon  the  several  most  important  branches  of  manufacture 


414  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

were  appointed,  and  a  committee  to  draft  a  memorial  to  congress  :  also 
a  committee  to  prepare  an  address  to  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
The  reports  of  the  different  committees  form  a  large  volume,  embracing 
a  great  amount  and  variety  of  facts  and  statistics  which  were  not  only 
in  themselves  interesting,  but  useful  to  the  political  economist  and  the 
statesman.  The  memorial  and  petition  to  congress  contained  the  project 
of  a  tariff  of  duties  upon  raw  wool  and  the  different  kinds  and  qualities 
of  woolen  manufactures,  for  the  consideration  of  congress.  An  increase 
of  duty  on  other  articles  of  manufacture  was  also  recommended. 

The  subject  of  a  general  revision  of  the  tariff  was  again  brought 
before  congress,  on  the  31st  of  December,  1827;  and  a  resolution  was 
adopted  authorizing  the  committee  on  manufactures  to  send  for  persons 
and  papers.  The  object  of  granting  this  power  was  to  enable  the  com- 
mittee to  ascertain  and  report  such  facts  as  might  be  useful  in  guiding 
the  judgment  of  the  house.  On  the  31st  of  January,  1828,  the  com- 
mittee made  a  report,  accompanied  by  a  bill  "  in  alteration  of  the  several 
acts  imposing  duties  on  imports ;"  and  the  debate  on  the  same  commenced 
the  3d  of  March,  and  terminated  on  the  22d  of  April. 

The  committee  stated  in  their  report,  that,  from  the  evidence  relating 
to  the  woolen  manufacture,  the  following  facts  appeared  :  (1.)  This  in- 
terest was  laboring  under  severe  depressions.  (2.)  These  depressions 
were  caused,  in  a  great  degree,  by  excessive  and  irregular  importations, 
and  the  consequent  fluctuation  in  price.  (3.)  The  prices  of  wool  in 
England  were  nearly  fifty  per  cent,  less  than  in  this  country.  (4.)  The 
cost  of  our  wool  in  most  cloths  was  about  one-half  of  the  cost  of  the 
fabric.  (5.)  At  the  same  cost  of  wool  and  foreign  dying  materials,  the 
manufactured  article  could  be  afforded  as  cheap  in  this  country  as  in  Eng- 
land. (6.)  The  present  duty  was  insufficient ;  and  to  render  any  reason- 
able duty  effectual,  it  must  be  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem. 

The  committee  reported  the  scale  of  minimums  adopted  by  the  house 
in  the  "  woolens  bill"  at  the  preceding  session,  except  that  the  minimum 
Si  50  was  reduced  to  $1  ;  and  a  specific  duty  was  proposed  as  follows  : 
On  cloths  falling  under  the  minimum  of  50  cents,  a  duty  of  16  cents  the 
square  yard  ;  under  that  of  $1,  a  duty  of  40  cents ;  under  that  of  $2  50, 
a  duty  of  $1  ;  and  under  that  of  ^4,  a  duty  of  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
And  a  provision  was  added,  charging  cloths  exceeding  $4  in  value,  an 
ad  valorem  duty  of  45  per  cent.  The  committee  also  reported  a  modifi- 
cation of  the  tariff  generally. 

The  debate  embraced  the  usual  Variety  of  topics.  Most  of  the  former 
arguments  on  the  constitutionality  and  the  general  effects  of  the  protec- 
tive system,  were  reproduced  ;  and  the  most  opposite  opinions  were  ex- 
pressed as  to  the  operation  of  the  proposed  measure. 


TARIFF    OF   1828.  415 

Mr.  Mallary,  chairman  of  tbe  committee,  dissented  from  the  majority 
on  some  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  especially  those  relating  to  wool 
and  woolens,  and  moved  an  amendment  adopting  substantially  the  pro- 
visions of  the  woolens  bill  of  the  last  session.  He  expressed  his  views 
upon  the  general  subject  of  protection,  and  upon  the  merits  of  the  bill. 
The  duty  on  wool,  as  proposed  by  the  committee's  bill,  he  deemed  highly 
objectionable.  By  the  act  of  1824,  the  coarse  wool  from  South  America, 
costing  10  cents  a  pound  at  the  place  whence  it  was  imported,  was  sub- 
ject to  a  duty  of  15  per  cent.  As  this  grade  of  wool  was  not  grown  in 
this  country,  a  higher  rate  of  duty  would  have  raised  the  price  of  the 
cloth,  without  essentially  benefiting  the  wool  grower.  On  all  other  wool, 
the  duty  was  20  per  cent.,  to  be  increased  5  per  cent,  every  year,  until  it 
should  have  reached  50  per  cent.  By  the  present  bill,  all  kinds  of  wool 
were  to  be  charged  7  cents  a  pound,  and  in  addition,  an  ad  valorem  duty 
of  40  per  cent.,  to  be  increased  to  50  per  cent.  Since  the  passage  of  the 
act  of  1824,  manufactories  had  been  built  expressly  for  working  this 
kind  of  raw  material  into  negro  cloths,  inferior  baizes  and  flannel,  used  by 
the  poorer  classes ;  and  the  foreign  fabric  had  been  almost  entirely  ex- 
cluded. The  effect  of  the  proposed  duty  would  be  to  drive  the  manufac- 
ture out  of  the  country. 

Another  objection  to  the  bill  was,  that  the  duties  on  the  raw  material 
were  too  high  in  comparison  with  those  on  the  manufactured  article.  If 
the  country  did  not  furnish  an  adequate  supply,  the  deficiency  must  be 
made  up  by  importation ;  and  if  the  wool  unmanufactured  were  met  by  too 
high  a  duty,  it  would  come  in  the  manufactured  state.  It  was  feared 
that  the  effect  of  the  bill  would  be  the  separation  of  the  wool  grower 
from  the  manufacturer.  Their  interests  were  united.  The  prosperity 
of  the  one  was  dependent  upon  that  of  the  other.  The  manufacturer, 
relying  upon  a  foreign  market  for  wool,  might  prosper  under  a  high  duty 
on  cloth;  but  the  wool  grower  was  dependent  for  success  upon  the  manu- 
facturer. Hence,  a  system  of  duties  which  should  operate  so  adversely 
upon  the  latter  as  to  prevent  or  destroy  the  domestic  market  for  wool, 
would  be  equally  detrimental  to  the  former,  whatever  might  be  the  duty 
on  foreign  wool. 

Calculations  were  made  to  show  that  the  bill  was  less  favorable  to 
both  the  manufacturer  and  the  wool  grower,  than  the  tariff  of  1824.  The 
manufacturer  of  the  coarse  fabric,  being  dependent  on  the  foreign  article 
for  supplies  of  the  raw  material,  would  be  ruined ;  as  the  American 
farmer  can  not  afford  to  grow  the  coarse  wool,  worth  only  eight  to  twelve 
cents  a  pound,  instead  of  that  of  a  quality  which  would  command  thirty- 
five  to  fifty  cents.  The  foreigner  would  take  the  wool  which  we  pro- 
hibited, and  furnish  the  fabric,  the  manufacture  of  which  the  American 


416  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

must  abandon.  And  by  throwing  the  manufacture  out  of  the  country, 
the  effects  of  domestic  competition  would  be  lost ;  and  the  duty  would 
in  reality  be  a  tax  on  the  consumer. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  calculated  with  equal  confidence,  that  the 
bill  would  operate  equally  and  favorably  upon  all  classes  whose  interests 
were  involved  in  it.  The  necessity  of  increasing  the  duty  on  coarse 
wool  arose  from  the  fact  of  its  coming  in  very  dirty,  losing  nearly  half 
its  weight  in  cleaning.  But  when  cleaned,  its  quality  approached  so 
nearly  the  cheapest  grades  of  domestic  wool  as  to  affect  them  in  the  market. 
The  specific  duty  of  7  cents  would  compel  the  merchant  or  manufacturer 
to  import  only  the  cleanest  wool.  The  duty  proposed,  without  greatly 
advancing  the  price,  would,  by  checking  the  importation,  create  a  demand 
on  the  American  farmer  for  coarse  wool.  It  was  attempted  to  be  shown 
by  arithmetical  calculation,  that  the  woolen  manufacturer  would  derive 
additional  protection  from  the  proposed  arrangement. 

The  late  repeal,  by  Great  Britain,  of  the  duty  on  wool,  had  been 
alleged,  by  our  manufacturers,  to  be  one  of  the  means  which  ena- 
bled the  British  to  undersell  them,  and  been  offered  as  a  reason  for 
additional  protection.  The  facts  were  said  to  be  these  :  Great  Britain 
had  for  two  hundred  years  prohibited,  under  severe  penalties,  the  export- 
ation of  sheep  or  wool,  and  allowed  the  importation  at  a  duty  of  one  cent 
a  pound.  The  imports  of  wool  from  Spain  and  Germany  having  become 
so  great  in  1819,  the  wool  growers  demanded  protection,  or  the  privilege 
of  exporting,  if  the  manufacturer  were  permitted  to  import :  and  a  duty 
of  6d  (11  cents)  a  pound  was  laid  upon  wool  imported.  In  1824,  this 
duty  was  repealed ;  and  by  the  same  law,  the  restriction  upon  the  export- 
ation was  removed.  How,  it  was  asked,  could  this  work  injury  to  the 
manufacturer  ? 

"With  respect  to  the  duty  on  molasses  also,  the  friends  of  protection 
were  divided  in  opinion.  The  existing  duty  was  5  cents ;  that  proposed 
by  the  bill  10  cents  a  gallon.  The  reasons  for  the  increase  were; 
(1.)  The  present  duty  was  disproportionate  to  that  on  sugar;  a  gallon 
of  molasses  being  equal,  as  a  sweetening  matter,  to  eight  pounds  of  sugar, 
on  which  was  paid  a  duty  of  24  cents.  (2.)  Much  of  the  article  being 
nsed  for  distillation,  it  came  into  competition  with  the  grain  of  the  farmer, 
for  whose  protection  the  increase  was  necessary. 

The  increase  was  opposed,  because,  (1.)  It  was  an  article  of  general  use 
among  all  classes  of  people,  and  of  which  this  country  could  not  furnish  a 
supply.  (2.)  It  would  injure  our  trade  with  the  West  Indies.  This  was 
the  only  fair  and  reciprocal  trade  of  great  importance  enjoyed  by  our 
citizens.  The  South  Carolina  doctrine  was,  "  If  a  nation  will  not  buy, 
it  can  not  sell."     It  was  equally  true,  that,  if  a  nation  can  not  sell,  it 


TARIFF    OF   1828.  417 

can  not  buy.  Our  annual  exports  tliitlier  amounted  to  $10,000,000  to 
$18,000,000,  consisting  chiefly  of  tlie  productions  of  the  forest  and  fish- 
eries. The  state  of  Maine  was  extensively  engaged  in  this  trade.  The 
timber  in  the  forest  was  of  little  value.  Nearly  the  whole  of  its  event- 
ual value  was  produced  by  its  manufacture  and  transportation  to  its  proper 
and  only  market.  The  lumber  business  gave  employment  to  $4,000,000 
of  capital,  14,000  men,  and  10,000  yoke  of  oxen.  Of  equal  or  greater 
importance  was  the  fishing  interest.  These  being  products  of  great  bulk 
and  burden,  they  required  a  large  amount  of  shipping  for  their  trans- 
portation. Molasses  was  the  principal  article  to  be  had  in  exchange  for 
lumber  and  fish  :  cash  could  not  be  procured  for  them. 

Another  effect  of  this  high  duty  on  molasses  reported  by  the  majority 
of  the  committee,  it  was  feared,  would  be  to  exclude  the  poorer  qualities, 
which  were  fit  only  for  distillation,  and,  consequently,  to  advance  the 
price  in  the  West  India  market  for  the  better  qualities.  Both  were  sold 
together ;  and  the  better  article  could  not  be  bought  alone  without  pay- 
ing a  price  which  would  compensate  the  seller  for  his  loss  on  the  poorer 

Spirits  not  being  considered  one  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  the  duty  on 
foreign  distilled  spirits  received  no  material  opposition.  So  also  in  rela- 
tion to  the  proposed  duties  on  iron  and  the  manufactures  of  iron,  the 
friends  of  protection  were  nearly  unanimous.  The  specific  duty  of  7 
cents  per  pound  on  coarse  wool  having  been  reduced  to  4  cents,  and  a 
few  other  provisions  having  been  slightly  altered,  the  bill  was  ordered 
to  a  third  reading  on  the  15th  of  April. 

The  next  day  the  bill  was  read  the  third  time,  and  on  the  question  of 
its  passage,  Mr,  Randolph  spoke  at  length  in  opposition,  and  concluded 
by  moving  its  indefinite  postponement.  Upon  this  motion  another 
debate  arose,  in  which  the  merits  of  the  bill  and  the  general  system  of 
protection  were  again  discussed.  In  this  discussion,  however,  few  took 
a  part,  except  the  opponents  of  the  protective  policy. 

Among  the  advocates  of  the  bill  were  Anderson,  Buchanan,  Forward, 
and  Ingham,  of  Pennsylvania ;  Bates,  of  Massachusetts ;  Barnard, 
Martin  Hoffman,  Martindale,  Strong  and  Wright,  of  New  York ;  Mal- 
lary,  of  Vermont ;  Bates,  of  Massachusetts  ;  Ingersoll,  of  Connecticut ; 
Vinton  and  Wright,  of  Ohio.  Of  those  who  spoke  in  opposition,  were 
Alexander,  Grilmer,  and  Randolph,  of  Virginia ;  Anderson  and  Sprague, 
of  Maine ;  Cambreleng,  of  New  York ;  Drayton,  Hamilton,  and  M'Duf- 
fie,  of  South  Carolina ;  Turner,  of  North  Carolina ;  Thompson,  of  New 
Jersey ;  Wickliffe,  of  Kentucky  ;  and  Wilde,  of  Greorgia, 

The  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  was  taken  on  the  22d  of  April,  and 
decided  in  the  affirmative,  105  to  94, 

The  spirit  of  some  of  the  opposing  members  was  strikingly  exhibited 

27 


418  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

on  taking  the  question  on  the  title  of  the  bill,  which  was,  "  An  act  in 
alteration  of  the  several  acts  imposing  duties  on  imports." 

Mr.  Wilde  moved  to  amend  it  bj  adding  the  words,  "  and  for  the 
encouragement  of  domestic  manufactures." 

Mr.  Randolph  opposed  the  motion,  insisting  that  domestic  manufac- 
tures were  those  which  were  carried  on  in  the  families  of  farmers,  in  the 
fabrication  of  what  used  to  be  called  Virginia  cloth ;  and  that  the  bill, 
if  it  had  its  true  name,  should  be  called,  a  bill  to  rob  and  plunder  nearly 
one-half  of  the  union,  for  the  benefit  of  the  residue,  &c.  Let  the  friends 
of  the  bill  christen  their  own  child;  he  would  not  stand  godfather  to  it. 
The  title  was  merely  ad  captandum  vidgus  ;  like  the  words  on  the  con- 
tinental money,  ridiculed  in  Smith's  verses : 

"  Libertas  et  natale  solum, 
Fine  words  indeed  !  I  wonder  where  you  stole  'em." 

The  bill  referred  to  manufactures  of  no  sort  or  kind,  but  the  manufacture 
of  a  president  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Wilde,  after  a  brief  reply,  in  which  he  assented  to  Mr.  R.'s 
opinion  of  the  bill,  but  thought  the  manufactures  in  the  family  ought  to 
be  called  household  manufactures,  consented  to  withdraw  his  amendment. 

Mr.  Drayton  then  moved  to  amend  the  title  as  follows :  strike  out  all 
after  "  An  act,"  and  insert,  "  to  increase  the  duties  upon  certain  imports, 
for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  profits  of  certain  manufacturers."  After 
some  general  remarks  on  the  injurious  character  of  the  bill,  he  stated 
that  the  main  reason  for  his  desiring  to  amend  the  title,  was,  that  a  deci- 
sion might  be  had  on  its  constitutionality,  by  an  appeal  to  the  supreme 
court  of  the  United  States,  on  some  case  which  might  arise  under  its 
operation.  This  could  not  be  done  if  the  title  remained  as  it  now  stood. 
A  declaration  by  the  power  which  enacted  the  law,  that  it  was  intended 
for  the  protection  of  certain  manufacturers,  would  bring  up  the  constitu- 
tional question,  whether  congress  could  increase  the  duties  on  imports 
for  such  a  purpose. 

Mr.  Hodges,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  to  amend  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Drayton,  by  adding  to  it  as  follows  :  "And  to  transfer  the  capital 
of  the  New  England  states  to  other  states  in  the  union." 

Whereupon  Mr.  Bartlett  moved  the  previous  question  on  the  title. 
The  house  sustained  the  call ;  the  previous  question  was  put  and  carried ; 
and  the  main  question  having  been  put,  as  follows :  "  Shall  this  be  the 
title  of  the  bill  ?"  it  was  carried  without  a  division. 

In  the  senate,  the  specific  duties  on  cloths,  as  fixed  by  the  house,  were 
changed  to  ad  valorem  duties  of  40  per  cent.,  to  be  increased  after  June, 
1829,  to  45  per  cent.     With  these  and  a  few  other  amendments,  the  bill 


TARIFF    OF   1828.  41^ 

'was  passed  :  and  the  amendments  were  afterward  concurred  in  "by  the 
house. 

Great  excitement  at  the  south,  especially  in  South  Carolina,  was  pro- 
duced by  the  action  of  congress  in  1827  and  1828,  on  the  subject  of  pro- 
tection. The  popular  indignation  found  vent  through  public  meetings, 
legislatures,  and  the  press,  in  terms  of  extreme  violence.  A  faithful  his- 
tory of  the  times  seems  to  require  a  record  of  some  expressions  of  south- 
ern feeling  and  sentiment.  With  many  it  has  been  a  question,  whether 
the  stand  taken  by  the  south  on  this  subject  was  designed  to  frighten 
the  people  of  the  north  from  the  position  they  had  assumed,  or  whether  it 
was  induced  by  the  belief  that  the  protective  policy  really  inflicted  upon 
them  the  injury  of  which  they  so  grievously  complained. 

A  memorial  to  the  state  legislature  was  adopted  by  the  citizens  of 
Columbia  and  Richland,  S.  C,  entreating  that  body  to  "save  them,  if 
possible,  from  the  conjoined  grasp  of  usurpation  and  poverty."  They 
say :  "  We  exist  as  a  member  of  the  union  merely  as  an  object  of  taxa- 
tion. The  northern  and  middle  states  are  to  be  enriched  by  the  plunder 
of  the  south.^'  "  The  citizens  of  South  Carolina  will  be  condemned  to 
work  as  the  tributaries  of  the  northern  and  middle  sections  of  the  union. 
It  is  so  now  -J  and  it  is  triumphantly  determined  to  extend  the  system 
indefinitely." 

In  their  memorial  to  congress,  they  declare  "  that  congress  possess  no 
power  under  the  constitution  to  enact  a  system  of  protection" — "  their 
honest  earnings  are  legislated  out  of  their  pockets" — and  the  burdens 
imposed  on  them  are  "  too  heavy  to  be  borne  in  silence  any  longer." 

In  an  address  to  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  the  citizens  of  Colleton 
district  say :  "  Your  remonstrances  and  your  implorations  have  been  in 
vain ;  and  a  tariff  bill  has  passed,  not,  indeed,  such  as  you  apprehended, 
but  tenfold  worse."  "  The  question  whether  congress  can  constitution- 
ally do  this  or  not,  excites  neither  solicitude  nor  alarm,  and  appears  un- 
worthy of  inquiry.  Power  seems  to  be  right ;  and  our  representatives 
sit  in  desponding  silence,  under  the  conviction,  that  their  voices  could  as 
easily  move  the  capitol  from  its  basis,  as  shake  the  purpose  of  interested 
cupidity.     They  protest,  indeed,  before  they  receive  the  blow. 

"  What  course  is  left  for  us  to  pursue  ?  Our  northern  and  western 
brethren  are  not,  can  not,  be  ignorant  of  the  operation  of  the  system  they 
advocate,  or  of  the  powers  they  claim  for  the  government.  They  full 
well  know,  because  like  us  they  must  feel,  that  it  lifts  them  to  prosper- 
ity, while  it  sinks  us  into  ruin.  We  have  done  by  words  all  that  Words 
can  do.     To  talk  more  must  be  a  dastard's  refuge. 

"  If  we  have  the  common  pride  of  men,  or  the  determination  of  free- 
men, we  must  resist  the  impositions  of  this  tariff.    *     *     *    In  advising 


420  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

an  attitude  of  open  resistance  to  the  laws  of  the  union,  we  deem  it  due 
to  the  occasion,  and  that  we  may  not  be  misunderstood,  distinctly,  but 
briefly  to  state,  without  argument,  our  constitutional  faith.  For  it 
is  not  enough  that  imposts  laid  for  the  protection  of  manufactures  are 
oppressive,  and  transfer  millions  of  our  property  to  northern  capitalists* 
If  we  have  given  them  our  bond,  let  them  take  our  blood.  Those  who 
resist  these  imposts  must  deem  them  unconstitutional ;  and  the  principle 
is  abandoned  by  the  payment  of  one  cent,  as  much  as  ten  millions." 

Retaliatory  measures  were  proposed.  It  was  suggested  by  a  citizen 
of  South  Carolina,  in  one  of  the  papers,  that  the  legislatures  of  the 
southern  states  prohibit  the  introduction  of  horses,  mules,  hogs,  beef, 
cattle,  bacon,  and  bagging,  from  Ohio,  Kentucky,  Tennesp.ee,  and  Indi- 
ana; whiskey,  beer,  flour,  cheese,  &c.,  from  New  York  and  Pennsylva- 
nia ;  and  also  lay  on  these  last  named  states  "  a  municipal  tax,  amount- 
ing to  prohibition,  on  all  stock  in  trade,  consisting  of  goods,  wares,  or 
merchandise,  the  produce  of  those  states." 

Another  paper  said :  "  The  object  of  every  agriculturist  should  be,  in 
the  first  place,  to  devise  means  for  the  destruction  of  the  manufacturing 
mania." 

A  Georgia  paper  called  the  tariff  an  "  accursed  chain  to  bind  us  vic- 
tims to  the  idol  mammon;"  and  said:  ''  We  must  now  turn  ourselves 
to  other  means  and  other  defenses,  constitutional,  indeed,  but  at  the 
same  time  with  spirit  pushing  resistance  to  the  very  bounds  'of  the  con- 
stitution. Let  there  be  a  wall  raised  between  them  and  us ;  and  let 
us  say  unto  them  as  Abraham  said  unto  Lot :  '  Let  there  be  no  strife,' 
&c.  '  Separate  thyself,  I  pray  thee,  from  me :  if  thou  wilt  take  the 
left  hand,  then  I  will  go  to  the  right ;  or  if  thou  depart  to  the  right 
hand,  then  I  will  go  to  the  left.' 

"  Let  us  lay  upon  ourselves  the  injunction  which  was  through  Moses 
laid  upon  the  Israelites :  '  And  thou  shalt  gather  all  the  spoil  of  it  into 
the  midst  of  the  street  thereof,  and  shalt  burn  with  fire  the  city  and  all 
the  spoil  thereof :  and  there  shall  cleave  nought  of  the  cursed  thing  to 
thine  hand.' 

"  Let  us  govern  ourselves  by  the  advice  of  the  apostle :  '  Touch  not, 
taste  not,  handle  not,  the  unclean  thing  which  is  theirs.'  And  for  this 
purpose  we  would  recommend  that  a  congress  assemble  from  all  the 
states  opposed  to  a  protecting  tariff,  in  order  to  advise  and  recommend 
to  the  different  legislatures  and  people,  such  measures,  consistent  with 
the  constitution,  as  may  seem  best  calculated  to  protect  them  from  the 
operation  of  the  tariff  bill,  and  prevent  the  introduction  and  use  of  the 
tariffied  articles  in  their  respective  states."     [Note  D.] 


RESOLUTIONS    ON    RETRENCHMENT    AND    REFORM.  421 


CHAPTER  XXXII. 

INTRODUCTION    AND    DISCUSSION  OF    RESOLUTIONS    ON    RETRENCHMENT  AND 
REFORM. 

Mr.  Chilton,  an  opposition  member  from  Kentucky,  on  the  22d  of 
January,  1828,  moved  certain  resolutions  declaring  the  expediency  of  a 
speedy  discharge  of  the  national  debt;  and,  in  order  to  its  accomplish- 
ment, the  necessity  of  a  general  system  of  retrenchment ;  and  instruct- 
ing the  committee^of  ways  and  means  to  report  to  the  house  what  ofl&ces 
might  be  discontinued,  and  what  salaries  might  be  reduced,  and  such 
other  means  of  retrenchment  as  to  them  might  seem  necessary. 

These  resolutions  were  the  subject  of  daily  debate  until  the  6th  of 
February,  when,  after  having  been  materially  modified,  they  were 
referred  to  a  select  committee  by  a  unanimous  vote.  Professing  to 
concur  in  the  principle  of  the  resolutions,  and  to  believe  that  the  sev- 
eral departments  of  the  government  had  been  economically  admin- 
istered, the  friends  of  the  administration,  although  they  considered  the 
introduction  of  the  resolutions  as  being  intended  for  party  effect,  made 
no  serious  opposition  to  their  reference.  Reduction  of  expense  in  the 
departments  of  state,  of  the  treasury,  of  the  navy,  of  war,  and  of  the 
post-office,  were  mentioned  as  particular  objects  of  inquiry ;  as  also  the 
contingent  funds  of  these  departments,  and  the  compensation  of  the 
members  of  congress.  The  debate  was  unusually  discursive,  embracing 
many  topics  having  no  relevancy  to  the  general  subject.  It  was  marked 
by  that  strong  party  feeling  which  might  be  expected  from  speakers  on 
one  side  who  were  fully  bent  on  overthrowing  the  administration,  and 
from  those  on  the  other,  equally  determined  to  sustain  it. 

The  resolutions  were  founded  upon  alleged  abuses  and  want  of  econ- 
omy in  the  administration  of  the  government.  The  specifications  made 
by  the  mover  were,  that  the  navy  list  was  crowded  ;  at  West  Pointy  a 
large  number  of  cadets  had  been  educated  at  the  public  expense,  who 
were  without  employment ;  a  ffth  auditor  had  been  appointed  for  a 
time  which  had  passed  away,  and  his  services  were  no  longer  necessary ; 
there  was  an  unnecessary  number  of  clerks  in  most  of  the  public  offices ; 
the  contingent  fund  had  been  improperly  used ;  many  salaries  might  be 
reduced,  and  the  reduction  should  begin  with  the  compensation  and 
mileage  of  members  of  congress  ;  and  there  was  an  unnecessary  expen- 
diture for  printed  documents. 

Although  the   speakers  of  the   opposition  party   concurred   in    the 


422  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

object  of  the  resolutions,  there  were  points  upon  which  the}  were  not 
entirely  unanimous.  Messrs.  Buchanan,  Randolph,  and  M'Duffie, 
though  they  believed  in  the  necessity  of  reform,  did  not  think  the 
present  a  favorable  time,  nor  the  manner  proposed  a  proper  one,  to 
effect  the  object.  Mr.  Buchanan  also  differed  with  Mr.  Chilton  in 
respect  to  the  office  of  fifth  auditor,  whose  duties  had  been  doubled 
since  the  office  was  created.  Several  members  of  the  opposition  also 
opposed  a  reduction  of  their  compensation.  Mr.  Chilton  subsequently 
said  the  fifth  auditor  was  not  the  one  whose  office  he  wished  discon- 
tinued.    He  believed,  however,  there  were  too  many  auditors. 

The  importance  of  a  speedy  payment  of  the  public  debt  was  urged  in 
favor  of  the  measure.  Mr.  Daniel,  of  Kentucky,  suggested  that  the 
savings  made  by  retrenchment  might  be  divided  among  the  states,  to 
be  expended  in  making  roads  and  canals.  There  were,  he  said,  more 
than  9,000  officers  employed  in  the  various  departments.  He  believed 
the  office  of  fourth  auditor  was  useless  ;  and  at  least  three  of  the  audi- 
tors might  be  dispensed  with.  Laborers  generally  were  required  to  work 
during  the  whole  day,  while  the  public  officers  attended  in  their  offices 
only  four  or  five  hours,  at  extravagant  salaries  of  $1,000  to  $3,000. 
Let  them  perform  a  greater  amount  of  labor,  and  their  number  might 
be  greatly  reduced. 

Money,  it  was  said,  too,  had  been  taken  out  of  the  treasury  for  wild 
and  visionary  projects.  The  operation  of  the  government  had  not  been 
confined  to  constitutional  objects;  but  a  new  era  had  opened  upon  us, 
and  we  were  about  to  feel  the  calamitous  effects  of  the  administration. 
The  military  academy  at  West  Point  was  denounced  as  a  monarchical 
institution,  the  benefits  of  which  were  confined  to  the  sons  of  the  rich 
and  well-born.  There  were  twenty  young  men,  supernumerary  2d  lieu- 
tenants, who  had  been  educated  at  the  public  expense,  ^nd  who  were 
now  supported  at  their  own  homes  at  an  annual  cost  of  $15,000  an- 
nually. 

Among  the  instances  of  the  misapplication  of  money,  was  the  appoint- 
ment of  Bufus  King  as  minister  to  London,  who  was  superannuated, 
and  known  to  be  incompetent  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  mission ;  on 
account  of  which,  we  had  lost  the  West  India  trade.  Yet  his  mission 
had  cost  $30,000  or  $40,000.  Another  minister  (Mr.  Gallatin)  had 
been  sent,  who  also  had  returned  without  having  essentially  benefitted 
the  nation.  It  was  alleged  as  an  abuse,  also,  that  our  foreign  ministers, 
in  addition  to  their  first  year's  salary  of  $9,000,  were  paid  an  equal 
sum  as  an  outfit.  And  it  was  mentioned  as  an  abuse  of  the  contingent 
fund  of  the  state  department,  that  John  A.  King,  secretary  of  legation, 
i?ho  had  been  left  by  his  father  as  charge  d'affaires  at  London,  had  beei^ 


RESOLUTIONS  ON  RETRENCHMENT  AND  REFORM.  423 

paid  a  salary,  or  an  outfit  (4,500)  and  part  of  a  salary,  wliile  he  re- 
mained in  England,  in  violation,  it  was  believed,  of  a  law  of  congress, 
which  requires  his  appointment  by  the  president  and  senate.  John  H. 
Pleasants  had  been  paid  $1,900  for  carrying  dispatches  to  one  of  our 
ministers  in  South  America ;  but  instead  of  performing  his  mission,  he 
had  sailed  to  Europe.  The^  Panama  mission  had  cost  $80,000  or 
$100,000,  and  resulted  in  no  great  benefit.  Mr.  Daniel  mentioned  other 
things  which  he  considered  abuses,  and  said  he  believed  that  many  of  the 
offices  under  the  government  were  mere  sinecures,  of  no  manner  of  good 
to  the  public,  and  ought  to  be  abolished.  And  the  president,  he  said, 
was  responsible  for  the  whole,  whether  these  offices  existed  before  he  came 
into  power  or  not.  He  ought  to  have  examined  into  them,  and  if  any  of 
them  could  be  dispensed  with,  he  ought  to  have  pointed  them  out  in  his 
message  to  congress. 

Mr.  M'Duffie  said  he  would  neither  inculpate  nor  exculpate  the 
administration.  He  would  say  nothing  that  would  have  a  bearing  on  the 
administration  in  one  way  or  another.  The  question  was  not  what  the 
government  had  done — that  was  past — but  this  was  a  practical  resolu- 
tion, which  had  reference  wholly  to  future  reforms.  Whether  there 
were  abuses  or  not — whether  our  ministers  had  been  sent  out  too  often, 
or  changed  without  sufficient  reason,  were  questions  not  involved  in  the 
resolution.  Whether  the  Panama  mission  was  expedient,  or  not,  was 
not  now  before  the  house  ;  that  mission  was  at  an  end ;  why  was  it 
brought  up  here,  and  at  this  time  ?  As  bearing  upon  the  administra- 
tion these  things  had  no  business  here. 

In  reference  to  the  public  debt,  and  the  mode  of  its  discharge,  he  said 
that  subject  was  before  the  committee  of  ways  and  means;  and  he 
moved  that  so  much  of  the  resolution  as  referred  to  the  public  debt,  be 
struck  out.  All  the  means  which  the  country  possessed  of  paying  that 
debt,  were  by  existing  laws  to  be  applied  to  that  object;  and  no  resolu- 
tion would  either  hasten  or  retard  its  payment. 

In  the  course  of  the  debate  the  president  was  also  censured  for  his 
having  rewarded  with  office  members  of  congress  who  had  aided  in  his 
election.  He  was  accused  of  having  proclaimed  doctrines  in  relation  to 
the  powers  of  the  general  government,  incompatible  with  every  notion  of 
a  limited  constitution,  the  rights  of  the  states,  and  the  liberties  of  the 
people.  And  having,  by  a  lawless  construction,  extended  the  powers  of 
the  government,  he  had  threatened  a  sovereign  state  (Greorgia)  with  the 
military  force  of  the  nation. 

Gentlemen  on  the  other  side  expressed  their  willingness  to  institute 
the  inquiry  proposed  by  the  resolutions.  Mr.  Wright,  of  Ohio,  said  the 
subject  was  not  a  new  one.     The  president,  in  his  message  in  December, 


424  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

1826,  had  said:.  "It  is  well  for  us,  however,  to  be  admonished  of  the 
necessity  of  abiding  by  the  maxims  of  the  most  vigilant  economy,  and 
of  resorting  to  all  honorable  expedients,  for  pursuing,  with  steady  and 
inflexible  perseverance,  the  total  discharge  of  the  debt."  And  in  the 
message  of  December,  1827,  he  says:  "The  deep  solicitude  felt  by  all 
classes  throughout  the  union,  for  the  tot^^l  discharge  of  the  public  debt, 
will  apologize  for  the  earnestness  with  which  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  urge 
this  topic  upon  the  consideration  of  congress,  of  recommending  to  them 
again  the  strictest  economy  in  the  application  of  the  public  funds." 

Mr.  Wright  said  he  had,  two  years  ago,  proposed  to  amend  the  rules 
of  the  house,  so  as  to  authorize  the  raising  of  a  standing  committee  on 
retrenchment,  to  ascertain  abuses,  and  suggest  measures  of  economy ; 
and  at  the  last  session  he  had  proposed  an  inquiry  into  the  expenditure 
of  the  contingent  fund  of  the  house.  If  unnecessary  offices  existed,  it 
was  not  to  be  charged  to  the  administration,  as  no  new  offices  had  been 
created.  Nor  had  they  raised  the  salaries  of  any  officers,  except  that  of 
the  postmaster-general ;  and  this  was  demanded  by  the  increasing  busi- 
ness of  his  department. 

The  administration  was  declared  to  be  desirous  of  paying  the  public 
debt.  The  S  10,000,000  annually  reserved  as  a  sinking  fund,  must  ine- 
vitably pay  the  debt.  The  present  administration  had  paid,  not  only 
the  ten  millions  annually,  but  a  part  of  the  deficiencies  of  the  preced- 
ing administration. 

Of  the  9,000  officers  said  to  be  employed  in  the  various  departments, 
it  ought  to  have  been  stated,  that  between  7,000  and  8,000  were  deputy 
postmasters. 

The  academy  at  West  Point  was  defended  by  several  members.  It 
had  been  recommended  by  Washington,  and  established  during  the 
administration  of  Jefferson,  and  cherished  by  every  subsequent  admin- 
istration. The  number  of  cadets  to  be  appointed,  and  the  recommenda- 
tion and  selection  of  candidates  for  admission,  were  regulated  by  law, 
and  not  by  the  administration.  It  was  true,  there  were  not  always 
vacancies  in  the  army  for  the  immediate  employment  of  all  the  cadets ; 
but  they  soon  became  merged  in  the  register,  and  ceased  to  be  super- 
numeraries. The  academy  was  also  defended  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  an 
opposition  member,  who  considered  an  institution  of  this  kind  as  the 
best  plan  of  military  instruction  ever  devised,  and  necessary  as  a  means 
of  providing  for  the  common  defense.  The  supply  of  officers,  however, 
was  too  great  for  the  demand  of  the  army ;  or,  if  gentlemen  pleased, 
the  army  was  too  small  for  the  academy. 

The  mission  to   England,  it  was  said,  had  been  tendered  to  Gov 
Clinton,  of  New  York,  and  by  him  declined,  he  having  just  been  elected 


RESOLUTIONS  ON  RETRENCHMENT  AND  REFORM.         425 

governor.  It  was  next  offered  to  Mr.  King,  who,  of  all  men  in  the 
nation,  was  generally  acknowledged  to  be  best  qualified  to  settle  the 
difficulties  between  the  two  countries :  and  the  appointment  was  such  as 
the  senate  approved.  At  the  time  of  the  appointment,  his  health  was 
sufficient  to  transact  the  public  business.  But  he  became  sick,  and 
returned  home,  and  soon  after  died.  Mr.  Gallatin  was  appointed  as  his 
successor.  The  mission  had  not  been  unsuccessful.  A  tre&ty  had  been 
effected,  by  which  $1,200,000  had  been  allowed  us  for  slaves  carried 
away  during  the  last  war ;  and  by  another  treaty,  the  boundary  line 
between  the  United  States  and  the  British  colonies  had  been  settled ; 
thus  terminating  two  long  standing  difficulties  between  the  two  countries. 

In  relation  to  the  matter  of  John  A.  King,  it  was  said,  that,  from  an 
official  report  of  the  secretary  of  state  made  at  the  preceding  session, 
in  answer  to  a  call  from  the  house  of  representatives,  it  appeared  to  have 
been  the  uniform  practice  under  preceding  administrations,  when  a 
minister  left  a  court  before  a  successor  arrived,  to  leave  some  one  in 
charge  of  our  diplomatic  affairs ;  and  the  charge  had,  perhaps,  always 
been  devolved  upon  the  secretary  of  legation.  Nor  did  the  compensa- 
tion allowed  Mr.  King  exceed  the  allowances  in  similar  cases  under 
former  administrations. 

John  H.  Pleasants  had  received,  as  bearer  of  dispatches,  the  usual 
sum,  and  no  more.  He  embarked  for  South  America,  but  was  prevented 
by  sickness  from  going  the  whole  distance.  He  however  employed  a 
person  to  deliver  the  dispatches,  and  the  service  was  satisfactorily  per- 
formed. 

The  Panama  mission,  it  was  said,  had  received  the  sanction  of  both 
houses,  and  been  approved  by  the  nation.  What  would  not  have  been  said 
against  the  administration,  if  the  invitation  to  attend  the  meeting  had 
not  been  accepted?  The  administration  was  not  responsible  for  the 
failure  of  the  meeting. 

In  reply  to  the  charge,  that  the  West  India  trade  had  been  lost  by 
the  diplomatic  blunders  of  the  administration,  Mr.  Bartlett,  of  New 
Hampshire,  stated  the  facts  to  be  as  follows :  When,  during  the  admin- 
istration of  Mr.  Monroe,  this  subject  was  under  negotiation,  our  govern- 
ment insisted  on  having  the  same  privileges  in  this  trade  as  the  British 
North  American  colonies.  That  was  the  question  at  the  close  of  his 
term.  So  soon  as  that  point  could  with  decency  be  surrendered  by  his 
successor,  it  was  given  up.  Then  the  British  government  insisted  on 
regulating  the  business  by  reciprocal  acts  of  legislation,  which  would 
have  left  our  commerce  to  the  caprice  or  interest  of  parliament,  or  even 
to  the  less  formal  annihilation  by  a  decree  in  council.  This  annuncia- 
tion was  accompanied  with  the  additional  suggestion,  that,  if  we  should 


426  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

legislate  for  such  a  purpose,  they  would  not  even  hold  out  an  encourage- 
ment that  they  would  meet  us  in  such  compromise.  Congress  refused 
to  act  in  that  crisis,  and  left  the  presideri  no  alternative  but  to  execute 
former  existing  laws.  But  subsequent  r.egotiation  had  secured  to  us 
that  trade  upon  a  better  foundation  i-han  any  act  of  parliament  would 
give  it.  Sweden  had  a  treaty  wi*^^  Great  Britain,  securing  reciprocal 
advantages  of  trade  with  her  W^-st  India  possessions:  and  by  a  treaty 
with  Sweden,  just  published,  we  had  secured  a  trade,  on  the  most  ad- 
vantageous terms,  to  the  island  of  St.  Bartholomews.  This  gave  us  an 
indirect  trade  to  the  British  islands,  to  which  our  trade  had  always 
been  in  articles  of  necessity  to  them.  They  must  still  have  them,  and 
pay  for  the  indirectness  of  the  trade,  while  their  ships  are  excluded  from 
the  trade  to  this  country,  giving  us  both  the  outward  and  home  freight. 

Another  charge  of  extravagant  expenditure,  had  been  founded  upon 
a  comparison  of  this  administration  with  that  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  made 
by  Mr.  Bives,  of  Virginia,  who  considered  three  or  four  millions  as  the 
ordinary  current  expenses  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  administration,  and  the 
ordinary  current  expenses  of  the  present,  thirteen  millions.  Mr.  Bart- 
lett,  by  a  different  process  of  calculation,  made  the  expenses  of  the 
former  greater,  and  those  of  the  latter  less,  than  his  opponent  had  done. 
A  great  change,  too,  in  the  condition  of  the  country  had  taken  place. 
At  the  former  period,  the  house  consisted  of  140  members,  now  of  213. 
In  the  senate  there  were  then  32,  now  48.  The  expenses  of  the  two 
branches  was  then  $164,526,  now  $471,800.  Our  army,  in  1802,  con- 
sisting of  2,400  men,  cost  $844,009;  now  it  consisted  of  6,000  men, 
and  cost  $2,050,317.  There  had  also  been  a  corresponding  increase  of 
the  navy,  and  consequently  of  its  expenses.  Since  that  period,  too,  we 
had  paid  large  sums  to  extinguish  Indian  titles.  Claims  growing  out  of 
the  late  war  had  been  paid ;  and  a  million  and  a  half  of  dollars  were 
distributed  among  the  soldiers  of  the  revolution. 

It  had  been  stated,  that  the  expense  of  foreign  intercourse  in  the  last 
three  years  of  Mr.  Monroe's  administration  had  been  $280,000,  and  in 
the  three  first  years  of  the  present,  $413,000.  But  in  this  statement, 
the  appropriations  for  1825,  which  had  been  made  before  Mr.  Adams 
came  into  office,  had  been  erroneously  imputed  to  him.  By  comparing 
the  appropriations  for  foreign  intercourse  for  1823,  1824,  and  1825, 
with  those  for  1826,  1827,  and  1828,  it  would  appear,  that,  in  the  latter 
period,  the  expense  was  $27,000  less  than  in  the  former.  Other  compar- 
isons with  preceding  administrations  were  made  by  Mr.  B.,  representing 
the  expenses  of  Mr.  Adams'  administration  to  have  been  less  than  those 
of  its  predecessors. 

The  appointment  of  members  of  congress  to  ofl&ce  who  had  voted  for 


RESOLUTIONS  ON  RETRENCHMENT  AND  REFORM.         427 

Mr.  Adams  in  the  house,  had  been  referred  to  as  an  evidence  of  the 
corruption  of  the  administration,  Mr.  Jefferson's  administration  had 
been  held  up  as  a  model  for  imitation.  He,  too,  had  been  chosen  by  the 
house ;  and  he  had  appointed  a  larger  number  of  members  of  congress 
to  office  than  Mr.  Adams  had.  The  old  charge  of  bargain  and  intrigue, 
as  connected  with  the  last  presidential  election,  had  been  reiterated, 
notwithstanding  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  Buchanan,)  who 
had  been  designated  by  the  accuser  as  witness,  had  said  in  his  place  to 
this  house,  and  to  the  world :  "Of  the  charge  of  corruption  in  the 
election,  I  will  not  speak :  if  there  was  any,  I  know  it  not." 

Mr.  Adams  had  been  charged  with  "  lawless  constructions"  of  the  con- 
stitution and  laws  to  extend  his  power  and  patronage.  And  under  this 
construction  he  had  appointed  foreign  ministers  on  original  missions,  in 
the  recess  of  the  senate.  The  same  power,  said  Mr.  Wright,  of  Ohio, 
had  been  exercised  by  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison  and  Monroe ;  and 
he  cited  the  instances.  Mr.  Jefferson  had,  in  the  recess  of  the  senate, 
in  1801,  instituted  the  office  of  secretary  of  legation,  and  commissioned 
one  such  officer  to  France,  and  another  to  Spain ;  and  he  had  appointed 
six  consuls  to  places,  to  which  none  had  been  sent  before. 

But  we  have  not  room  to  pursue  this  debate,  a  large  portion  of  which 
would  scarcely  be  considered  creditable  to  the  body  in  which  it  occurred. 
It  abounded  with  personalities  and  criminations.  Certain  acts  of  Mr. 
Adams  before  his  election,  and  those  of  his  competitor  for  the  presidency, 
were  made  the  subject  of  severe  animadversion. 

The  motives  of  the  opposition  were  impugned.  Every  preceding  ad- 
ministration, it  was  said,  had  been  similarly  assailed.  The  object  was  to 
overthrow  the  administration.  A  certain  letter  published  in  the  opposi- 
tion papers,  and  highly  applauded,  was  referred  to  as  evidence  of  a  com- 
bination of  the  friends  of  the  disappointed  rival  candidates  for  this  pur- 
pose. The  letter  said  :  "  To  the  friends  of  Jackson  and  Crawford,  those 
of  John  C.  Calhoun  are  added ;  and  the  union  forms  such  a  force  of 
numbers,  talents,  and  influence,  that  it  would  seem  improbable  that  this 
can  be  effectively  met  by  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Clay  and  their  friends, 
aided  by  their  united  experience,  ability,  patronage,  and  official  advan- 
tages, great  as  they  are.  Men  are  so  very  sincere  in  their  dislikes,  that 
the  most  opposite  natures  will  coalesce  to  diminish  the  power  of  an  object 
ot  a  higher  common  aversion,  and  will  surrender  the  strongest  personal 
competition  to  unite  for  mutual  safety." 

On  the  6th  of  February,  1828,  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Chilton,  having 
been  considerably  amended,  were  referred  to  a  select  committee,  consist- 
of  Messrs.  Hamilton,  Ingham,  Sergeant,  Rives,  Everett,  Wickliffe,  and 
Wright,  of  New  York.     On  the  22d  of  May,  this  committee  reported  re- 


428  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

solutions  instituting  an  inquiry,  during  the  recess  of  congress,  into  the  ac- 
counts of  Gales  and  Seaton,  as  public  printers,  the  prices  paid  them  for 
printing,  &c.,  and  whether  in  any  instances,  they  had  departed  from  the 
standard  ;  and  requiring  a  report  and  statement  to  be  submitted  at  the 
xiext  session  of  cofigress. 

On  the  24th  of  May,  the  last  business  day  of  the  session  preceding 
the  day  of  adjournment,  Mr.  Hamilton  reported  a  mass  of  papers  and 
documents  which  had  accumulated  in  the  course  of  the  investigations  of 
the  committee,  and  stated,  that,  from  want  of  time,  they  had  not  been 
able  to  prepare  the  bills  and  resolutions  necessary  to  carry  their  recom- 
mendation into  effect ;  but  it  was  their  intention  to  move  a  recommitment 
of  the  report  for  this  purpose,  on  an  early  day  of  the  next  session.  A 
minority  report  was  submitted  by  Mr.  Sergeant. 

Accordingly,  on  the  31st  of  December,  1828,  Mr.  Hamilton  moved 
the  commitment  of  the  report,  and  assured  the  house  that  the  requisite 
bill  should  be  prepared  with  all  possible  expedition.  On  the  24th  of 
January,  1829,  a  resolution  on  the  subject  of  stationery  came  up,  which, 
after  a  short  debate,  was,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Hamilton,  laid  on  the  table 
with  a  view  to  its  being  embraced  in  the  bill  about  to  be  reported  for  the 
whole  retrenchment  of  the  house.     No  bill,  however,  was  reported. 


CHAPTEE  XXXIII. 


PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTIONEERING. JEFFERSON's     OPINIONS   OF     THE    CANDI- 

'     DATES. ADAMS   AND    GILES    CONTROVERSY. 

Among  the  means  employed  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  candidates 
for  the  presidency,  were  attempts,  on  the  part  of  their  friends,  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  influence  of  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Jefferson. 

On  the  20th  of  November,  1827,  a  number  of  citizens  of  the  state  of 
Illinois,  addressed  to  Gov.  Coles,  of  that  state,  a  letter,  in  which  they 
said  they  had  seen  in  the  public  papers,  opinions  said  to  have  been  ex- 
pressed to  him  by  Mr.  Jefferson  of  Gen.  Jackson,  a  short  time  before 
the  death  of  the  former.  They  said  also  that  the  United  States  Tele- 
graph, (the  Jackson  paper  at  Washington,)  had  asserted  that  he  (Gov. 
Coles)  had  denied  ever  having  made  the  statements  imputed  to  him,  and 
that  other  papers  declared  that  he  had  made  them  :  and  they  requested 
him  to  state,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  last  conversation  he  had  with  Mr. 
Jefferson  in  relation  to  Gen.  Jackson  and  his  fitness  for  the  presidency. 


Jefferson's  opinion  of  the  candidates.  429 

Gov.  Coles,  in  his  answer,  says  tlie  conversatioa  took  place  on  tlie  11  tU 
of  August,  1825,  while  on  a  visit  to  Monticello.  Mr.  Jefferson,  in 
speaking  of  the  candidates  at  the  last  election,  expressed  a  decided  pre- 
ference for  Mr.  Crawford,  and  his  regret  that  he  had  lost  his  health,  and 
with  it  his  election.  But  having  failed  to  elect  him,  he  expressed  his 
gratification  that  the  choice  had  fallen  on  Mr.  Adams,  to  whom  he  said 
he  had  objections,  but  conceived  him  to  be  more  safe  and  fit,  and,  by  his 
acquirements  and  habits  of  life,  better  qualified  than  Gen.  Jackson  to 
discharge  the  duties  of  the  presidency.  "  In  a  word,"  continues  the 
governor,  "  he  spoke  of  Mr.  Adams  as  an  enlightened  and  experienced 
statesman,  of  Gen.  Jackson  as  a  valiant  and  successful  soldier,  with  no 
other  pretension  to  the  chief  magistracy  than  that  derived  from  his  mili- 
tary services.  While  conversing  about  Gen.  Jackson,  I  took  occasion  to 
say,  that  the  great  zeal  which  had  been  displayed  to  elect  the  general, 
and  the  extraordinary  vote  he  had  received,  had  made  me  doubt  the 
durability  of  our  free  institutions.  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  the  most  emphatic 
manner,  said,  '  Sir,  it  has  caused  me  to  doubt  more  than  any  thing  that 
has  occurred  since  the  revolution ;  that  'he  (Gen.  Jackson)  did  not  pos- 
sess the  temper,  the  acquirements,  the  assiduity,  the  physical  qualifica- 
tions for  the  office ;  that  he  had  been  in  various  civil  offices,  and  had 
made  a  figure  in  none :  and  that  he  had  completely  failed  to  show  him- 
self competent  to  an  executive  trust  in  Florida — in  a  word',  said  the  ven- 
erable old  patriarch,  '  there  are  one  hundred  men  in  Albemarle  county 
better  qualified  for  the  presidency.'  " 

The  governor  said,  that,  having  had  a  conversation  with  Thomas  W. 
Gilmer,  (since  governor  of  Virginia,)  and  having  learned  that  he  had 
repeated  the  same  remark  to  many  others,  he  (Gov.  C.)  addressed  him 
a  note,  and  received  an  answer,  dated  May  27,  1 827,  in  which  Mr.  Gil- 
mer says :  "  Mr.  Jefferson  made  no  secret  of  his  opinions  of  Gen.  Jackson. 
As  a  soldier  and  patriot,  the  general  was  regarded  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  as 
by  the  American  people,  with  admiration  and  gratitude.  I  speak  more 
from  information  derived  from  others,  than  of  what  I  know  myself,  when 
I  say,  that  Mr.  Jefferson's  opinion  of  Gen.  Jackson  as  a  statesman  was 
less  favorable.  I  believe  his  opinion  on  this  subject  was  notorious  among 
those  who  possessed  any  share  of  his  confidence. 

"  I  remember  to  have  heard  Mr.  Jefferson,  on  one  occasion,  use  an 
expression  which  struck  me,  not  so  much  by  the  sentiment  it  contained, 
(which,  indeed,  was  a  very  common  one  in  Virginia,)  as  the  style  in  which 
it  was  made.  Speaking  of  the  several  candidates  for  the  presidency, 
before  the  last  election,  he  remarked,  that  '  one  might  as  well  make  a 
sailor  of  a  cock,  or  a  soldier  of  a  goose,  as  a  president  of  Andrew  Jack- 
son.'    These  words  made  an  indelible  impression  on  my  memory.     They 


430       •  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

were  uttered  with  a  to^e  of  sportive,  almost  with  contemptuous  derision. 
Mr.  Jeiferson  was  descanting  at  the  time  when  this  remark  was  elicited, 
on  the  proneness  of  the  multitude  to  give  a  man  who  possessed  one  vir- 
tue, credit  for  others  which  he  did  not  possess,  or  of  the  want  of  discrimi- 
nation in  the  public  mind,  where  any  thing  like  enthusiasm  and  favoritism 
was  mingled  with  a  subject. 

"  It  is  due,  perhaps,  to  justice  and  truth  to  add,  that  Mr.  Jefferson, 
so  far  as  I  know,  entertained  opinions  equally  unfavorable  of  John  Q. 
Adams  as  a  statesman.  .1  think  in  the  conversation  just  alluded  to,  he 
spoke  of  him  as  having  been  always  one  thing  in  politics,  and  having 
undergone  no  actual  change  since  the  days r of  his  pupilage  in  the  school 
of  the  elder  Adams.     *     *     * 

"  I  have  repeatedly  heard  others  speak  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  sentiments 
on  this  subject.  I  do  not  recollect  to  have  heard  Mr.  Jefferson  say  any 
thing  in  relation  to  Gren.  Jackson  after  the  late  election  ;  and  it  is  not  for 
me  to  surmise  what  might  have  been  his  opinion  at  this  time,  were  he 
alive.  I  must  say,  in  conclusion,  that  I  am  grieved  to  find  that  the 
press  has  stooped  so  far  below  its  proper  dignity  as  to  use  such  unbecom- 
ing means  to  instruct  or  convince  the  public." 

The  apparent  discrepancy  in  the  statements  of  Messrs.  Coles  and  Gil- 
mer in  regard  to  Mr.  Jefferson's  opinions  of  Mr.  Adams  does  not  affect 
the  veracity  of  either  of  these  gentlemen,  when  it  is  considered  that  the 
conversation  with  one  of  them  was  antecedent,  and  that  with  the  other 
subsequent,  to  the  election ;  and  that,  during  the  intervening  period,  a 
change  in  Mr.  Jefferson's  opinions  may  have  taken  place,  which  is  highly 
probable. 

Subsequently  to  the  publication  of  Mr.  Grilmer's  letter,  by  Gov.  Coles, 
the  former  published  a  statement,  (Dec.  1827,)  in  which  he  says  :  "  Had 
Mr.  Coles  desired  it,  I  should  have  been  equally  explicit  as  to  the  opin- 
ions which  Mr.  Jefferson  at  the  same  time  expressed  of  Mr.  Adams,  I 
should  have  stated  what  Mr.  C.  would  not  have  been  so  eager  to  publish  ; 
that  while  Mr.  Jefferson  spoke  thus  in  jest  of  Gen.  Jackson's  elevation 
to  the  presidency,  he  seriously  deprecated  the  election  of  Mr.  Adams  as 
an  evil  portending  most  calamitous  consequences  to  the  country.  *  *  * 
He  spoke  of  Mr.  Adams  as  the  federal  candidate,  whose  election  would 
be  the  means  of  restoring  the  federal  dynasty  of  1798 — as  a  man  whose 
earliest  and  strongest  predilections  had  been  imbibed  in  the  high  schools 
of  ultra-federalism — whose  political  principles,  however  artfully  disguised, 
had  undergone  no  change  by  his  pretended  apostacy.  He  regarded  Mr.. 
Adams  a  learned  rather  than  wise  man — as  a  politician,  moie  specious 
than  sound — possessing  many  of  the  erroneous  theories,  with  little  of 
the  practicability  of  a  statesman." 


Jefferson's  opixion  of  the  candidates.  431 

Mr.  Coles  having  alluded  to  a  letter  from  Peter  Minor,  deceased,  to 
his  brother  Garret  Minor,  in  which  were  detailed  opinions  of  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son similar  to  those  expressed  to  Mr.  Coles,  Mr,  Gr.  Minor  procured  the 
publication  of  that  part  of  his  brother's  letter  which  relates  to  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson, and  which  was  in  answer  to  one  from  him,  stating  that  the  friends 
of  Mr.  Crawford  had  generally  gone  over  to  Gen.  Jackson.  Mr.  P. 
Minor  says  :  "  I  admire  the  refuge  which  you  say  you  are  all  seeking 
in  a  body  from  the  oppressions  of  Mr.  Adams'  administration.  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson, of  late  years,  seldom  ventured  to  say  any  thing  on  politics ;  but 
he  observed  to  a  friend,  not  many  weeks  before  his  death,  that  his  faith 
in  the  self-government  of  the  people  had  never  been  so  completely  shaken 
as  it  had  been  by  the  efforts  made  at  the  last  election,  to  place  over  their 
heads  a  man  who,  in  every  station  he  ever  filled,  either  military  or  civil, 
made  it  a  point  to  violate  every  order  and  instruction  given  him,  and 
take  his  own  arbitrary  will  as  the  guide  of  his  conduct." 

Another  case  occurred  before  the  election  of  1828,  of  Mr.  Jefferson's 
sentiments  being  improperly  brought  into  the  public  prints  for  the  pur- 
pose, as  is  presumed,  of  influencing  the  public  mind  on  the  subject  of  the 
election. 

It  will  be  recollected  that,  in  1808,  Mr.  Adams,  having  become  dis- 
satisfied with  the  federal  party,  whose  views  he  could  no  longer  represent, 
resigned  his  seat  in  the  senate  of  the  United  States,  and  became  the  poli- 
tical friend  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  the  supporter  of  his  administration ; 
and  it  was  believed  that  he  then  enjoyed,  and  continued  to  enjoy,  a  large 
share  of  the  confidence  and  good  opinion  of  Mr.  Jefferson.  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son, as  has  been  already  seen,  was  an  advocate  of  a  strict  construction  of 
the  constitution,  also  called  "state  rights;"  whereas,  the  inaugural 
address,  and  the  first  annual  message  of  Mr.  Adams,  and  the  early  indi- 
cations of  the  character  of  his  administration,  had  shown  him  to  be,  in 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  too  latitudinarian  in  his  views  of  the  pow- 
ers of  the  general  government.  And  there  were  those  among  his  oppo- 
nents who  alleged  that  he  had  never  been  a  true  and  sincere  republican ; 
that  his  political  conversion  had  been  a  mere  pretense.  One  of  these 
was  William  B.  Giles,  of  Virginia. 

The  presidential  election  was  approaching ;  and  it  is  natural  to  pre- 
sume that  either  party  would  gladly  avail  itself  of  the  influence  of  Mr. 
Jefferson  in  favor  of  its  own,  or  against  the  opposing  candidate.  In  the 
Bichmond  Enquirer  of  the  7th  of  September,  1827,  Mr.  Giles  caused  to 
be  published  extracts  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Jefferson,  dated  December 
26,  1825,  in  answer  to  one  from  Mr.  Giles,  in  relation  to  Mr.  Adams 
and  his  administration.     In  this  letter,  Mr.  Jefferson  says  : 

"  I  see,  as  you  do,  and  with  the  deepest  afiliction,  the  rapid  strides 


432  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


• 


with  wliicli  the  federal  branch  of  our  government  is  advancing  tow  ard 
the  usurpation  of  all  the  rights  reserved  to  the  states,  and  the  consolida- 
tion in  itself  of  all  powers,  foreign  and  domestic,  and  that  too,  by  con- 
structions, which,  if  legitimate,  leave  no  limits  to  their  power.  Take 
together  the  decisions  of  the  federal  court,  the  doctrines  of  the  president, 
and  the  misconstructions  of  the  constitutional  compact  acted  on  by  the 
legislature  of  the  federal  branch,  and  it  is  but  too  evident  that  the  three 
ruling  branches  of  that  department  are  in  combination  to  strip  their  col- 
leagues, the  state  authorities,  of  the  powers  reserved  by  them,  and  to 
exercise  themselves,  all  functions,  foreign  and  domestic.  Under  the 
power  to  regulate  commerce,  they  assume  indefinitely  that  also  over  agri- 
culture and  manufactures,  and  call  it  regulation  too,  to  take  the  earnings 
of  one  of  these  branches  of  industry,  and  that,  too,  the  most  depressed, 
and  put  them  into  the  pockets  of  the  other,  the  most  flourishing  of  all. 
Under  the  authority  to  establish  post-roads,  they  claim  that  of  cutting 
down  mountains  for  the  construction  of  roads ;  of  digging  canals ;  and, 
aided  by  a  little  sophistry  on  the  words  "  general  welfare,"  a  right  to  do, 
not  only  the  acts,  to  effect  that,  which  are  specifically  enumerated  and 
permitted ;  but  whatsoever  they  shall  think  or  pretend  will  be  for  the 
general  welfare.  And  what  is  our  resource  for  the  preservation  of  the 
constitution  ?  Reason  and  argument  ?  You  might  as  well  reason  and 
argue  with  the  marble  columns  encircling  them.  The  representatives 
chosen  by  ourselves  ?  They  are  joined  in  the  combination,  some  from 
incorrect  views  of  government,  some  from  corrupt  ones,  sufficient,  voting 
together,  to  outnumber  the  sound  parts,  and  with  majorities  of  only  one, 
two,  or  three,  bold  enough  to  go  forward  in  defiance.  *  Are  we  then  to 
stand  to  our  arms  V 

"  No  !  that  must  be  the  last  resource,  not  to  be  thought  of  until  much 
longer  and  greater  suffering.  If  every  infraction  of  a  compact  of  so 
many  parties,  is  to  be  resisted  at  once  as  a  dissolution  of  it,  none  can  ever 
be  formed  which  would  last  one  year.  We  must  have  patience  and  long  en- 
durance, then,  with  our  brethren  while  under  delusion.  Grive  them  time 
for  reflection  and  experience  of  consequences  ;  keep  ourselves  in  a  situa- 
tion to  profit  by  the  chapter  of  accidents ;  and  separate  from  our  com- 
panions only  when  the  sole  alternatives  left  are  a  dissolution  of  the  union, 
or  submission  to  a  government  without  a  limitation  of  powers.  Between 
these  two  evils,  when  we  must  make  a  choice,  there  can  be  no  hesitation; 
but,  in  the  meanwhile,  the  states  should  be  watchful  to  note  every  mate- 
rial usurpation  of  their  rights ;  to  denounce  them  as  they  occur  in  the 
most  peremptory  terms ;  to  protest  against  them  as  wrongs  to  which  our 
present  submission  shall  be  considered,  not  as  acknowledgments  or  prece- 
dents of  rights,  but  as  a  temporary  yielding  to  the  lesser  evil,  until  their 


ADAMS    AND    GILES    CONTROVERSY.  433 

t 

accumulation  shall  overweigh  their  separation.  I  would  go  still  further, 
and  give  to  the  federal  member,  by  regular  amendment  of  the  constitution, 
a  right  to  make  roads  and  canals  of  intercommunication  between  the 
states — providing  sufficiently  against  corrupt  practices  in  congress,  (log 
rolling,  &c.,)  by  declaring  that  the  federal  proportion  of  each  state  of  the 
moneys  so  employed,  shall  be  in  works  within  the  state,  or  elsewhere 
with  its  consent,  and  with  a  due  salvo  of  jurisdiction.  This  is  the  course 
which  I  think  safest  and  best  as  yet. 

"  You  ask  my  opinion  of  the  propriety  of  giving  publicity  to  what  is 
stated  in  your  letter  as  having  passed  between  Mr.  John  Q.  Adams  and 
yourself  Of  this  no  one  can  judge  but  yourself  It  is  one  of  those 
questions  which  belong  to  the  forum  of  feeling.  This  alone  can  decide 
on  the  degree  of  confidence  implied  in  the  disclosure.  Whether,  under 
no  circumstances,  it  was  to  be  communicable  to  others.  It  does  not 
seem  to  be  of  that  character,  or  at  all  to  wear  that  aspect.  They  are 
historical  facts  which  belong  .to  the  present  as  well  as  future  time.  I 
doubt  whether  a  single  fact,  known  to  the  world,  will  carry  as  clear  a 
conviction  to  it,  of  the  correctness  of  our  knowledge  of  the  treasonable 
views  of  the  federal  party  of  that  day,  as  that  disclosed  by  this  most  ne- 
farious and  daring  attempt  to  dissever  the  union,  of  which  the  Hartford 
Convention  was  a  subsequent  chapter  ;  and  both  of  these  having  failed, 
consolidation  becomes  the  first  book  of  their  history.  But  this  opens 
with  a  vast  accession  of  strength  from  their  younger  recruits,  who,  having 
nothing  in  them  of  the  feelings  or  principles  of  '76,  now  look  to  a  single 
and  splendid  government  of  an  aristocracy  founded  on  banking  institu- 
tions and  moneyed  incorporations,  under  the  guise  and  cloak  of  their 
favored  branches  of  manufactures,  commerce,  and  navigation,  riding 
and  ruling  over  the  plundered  plowman  and  beggared  yeomanry.  This 
will  be  to  them  a  next  blessing  to  the  monarchy  of  their  first  aim — and 
perhaps  their  surest  stepping  stone  to  it." 

On  the  11th  of  October,  1828,  Judge  Archibald  Stewart,  of  Staun- 
ton, Virginia,  wrote  to  Thomas  Jefi'erson  Randolph,  grandson  and  exec- 
utor of  Thomas  JeiFerson,  saying  :  "  I  am  advised  that  among  the  papers 
in  your  possession,  there  is  a  letter  written  by  your  grandfather,  vindi- 
cating Mr.  Adams'  political  course  in  the  support  which  he  gave  to  his 
administration,  and  the  reasons  which  entitled  him  to  so  large  a  share 
of  his  confidence.  *  *  *  Candid  men  of  all  parties  will  be  gratified 
to  receive  testimony  from  so  pure  a  source.  May  I  then  ask  the  favoi 
of  you  to  furnish  me  with  a  copy  of  the  letter  referred  to,  that  it  may 
be  laid  before  the  people. " 

Mr.  Randolph,  in  compliance  with  this  request,  sent  a  copy  of  the  let- 
ter ;  and,  in  an  accompanying  letter,  said  he  deemed  it  no  violation  of 

28 


434  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

his  trust  "  to  allow  them  (the  writings  of  his  grandfather)  to  be  used  as 
vindicatory  testimony  of  the  character  or  conduct  of  any  individual." 
He  says  farther :  "  The  facts  contained  in  this  letter  have  long  been 
familiar  to  me,  having  often  heard  them  with  great  interest  from  my 
grandfather  in  conversation  with  others,  on  different  occasions,  from  the 
date  of  their  occurrence  to  his  death." 

This  letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson  was  dated  the  25th  of  December,  1825, 
the  day  before  that  from  which  the  foregoing  extracts  have  been  taken ; 
and  both  were  written  in  answer  to  a  letter  from  Mr.  Giles  of  the  15th 
of  December,  in  which  he  communicated  to  Mr.  Jefferson  the  intention 
of  continuing  a  series  of  "  political  disquisitions,"  which  he  had  been 
writing  for  the  public  "  on  the  rapidly  progressive  usurpations  of  the 
general  government,"  and  of  extending  these  disquisitions  into  an  exami- 
nation of  some  of  the  most  prominent  principles  avowed  in  the  recent 
message  of  the  president.  "  In  the  performance  of  this  task,"  he  says, 
"  I  think  material  aid  might  be  derived  from  looking  back  to  the  period 
of  Mr.  Adams'  political  conversion,  reviewing  the  inducements  then  sug- 
gested  by  him  for  his  conversion ;  and  tracing  the  outlines  of  the  policy 
pursued  by  him  from  that  time  to  the  present.  But  I  could  not  permit 
myself  to  place  that  transaction  before  the  public  without  consulting  you, 
sir,  upon  the  propriety  of  the  measure."  One  of  the  objects  of  consult- 
ing Mr.  Jefferson  was  to  know  whether  his  (Mr.  Giles')  recollection 
of  the  inducements  suggested  by  Mr.  Adams  for  his  political  change  was 
correct. 

Mr.  Jefferson  says  in  reply :  "  Far  advanced  in  my  83d  year,  worn 
down  with  infirmities  which  have  confined  me  almost  entirely  to  the  house 
for  seven  or  eight  months  past,  it  afflicts  me  much  to  receive  appeals  to 
my  memory  for  transactions  so  far  back  as  that  which  is  the  subject  of 
your  letter.  My  memory  is  indeed  become  almost  a  blank,  of  which  no 
better  proof  can  probably  be  given  you,  than  by  my  solemn  protestation 
that  I  have  not  the  least  recollection  of  your  intervention  between 
Mr.  John  Q.  Adams  and  myself,  in  what  passed  on  the  subject  of 
the  embargo.  Not  the  slightest  trace  of  it  remains  in  my  mind. 
Yet  I  have  no  doubt  of  the  exactitude  of  the  statement  in  your  letter. 
And  the  least  as  I  recoUeot  the  interview  with  Mr.  Adams  to  which  the 
previous  communication  which  had  passed  between  him  and  yourself, 
were  probably  and  naturally  the  preliminary.  That  interview  I  remem- 
ber well,  not,  indeed,  in  the  very  words  which  passed  between  us,  but  in 
their  very  substance,  which  was  of  a  character  too  awful,  too  deeply  en- 
graved in  my  mind,  and  influencing  too  materially  the  course  I  had  to 
pursue,  ever  to  be  forgotten. 

"  Mr.  Adams  called  on  mo  pending  the  embargo,  and  while  endeavors? 


ADAMS    AND    GILES    CONTROVERSY.  435 

were  making  to  obtain  its  repeal.  *  *  *  He  spoke  of  the  dissatis- 
faction of  the  eastern  portion  of  our  confederacy  with  the  restraints  of 
the  embargo,  then  existing,  and  their  restlessness  under  it.  That  there 
was  nothing  that  might  not  be  attempted  to  rid  themselves  of  it  That 
he  had  information  of  the  most  unquestionable  certainty,  that  certain 
citizens  of  the  eastern  states,  (I  think  he  named  Massachusetts  particu- 
larly,) were  in  negotiation  with  the  agents  of  the  British  government,  the 
object  of  which  was  an  agreement,  that  the  New  England  states  should  take 
no  farther  part  in  the  war  then  going  on ;  that,  without  formally  declaring 
their  separation  from  the  union  of  the  states,  they  should  withdraw 
from  all  aid  and  obedience  to  them ;  that  their  navigation  and  commerce 
should  be  free  from  restraint  or  interruption  by  the  British ;  that  they 
should  be  considered  and  treated  by  them  as  neutrals,  and  as  such  might 
conduct  themselves  towards  both  parties  ;  and,  at  the  close  of  the  war,  be 
at  liberty  to  rejoin  the  confederacy. 

"  He  assured  me  that  there  was  imminent  danger  that  the  convention 
would  take  place  ;  that  the  temptations  were  such  as  might  debauch 
many  from  their  fidelity  to  the  union  ;  and  that  to  enable  its  friends  to 
make  head  against  it,  the  repeal  of  the  embargo  was  absolutely  neces- 
sary. I  expressed  a  just  sense  of  the  merit  of  the  information,  and  of 
the  importance  of  the  disclosure  to  the  safety  and  even  salvation  of  our 
country:  and  however  reluctant  I  was  to  abandon  the  measure,  (  a  mea- 
sure which,  persevered  in  a  little  longer,  we  had  subsequent  and  satis- 
factory assurance  would  have  effected  its  object  completely,)  from  that 
momeut,  and  influenced  by  that  information,  I  saw  the  necessity  of 
abandoning  it;  and  instead  of  effecting  our  purpose  by  this  peaceful 
weapon,  we  must  fight  it  out,  or  break  the  union.  I  then  recommended 
to  my  friends  to  yield  to  the  necessity  of  a  repeal  of  the  embargo,  and 
to  endeavor  to  supply  its  place  by  the  best  substitute  in  which  they 
could  procure  a  general  concurrence. 

"  I  can  not  too  often  repeat,  that  this  statement  is  not  pretended  to 
be  in  the  very  words  which  passed;  that  it  only  gives  faithfully  the  im- 
pression remaining  on  my  mind.  The  very  words  of  a  conversation  are 
too  transient  and  fugitive  to  be  so  long  retained  in  remembrance.  But 
the  substance  was  too  important  to  be  forgotten,  not  only  from  the  revo- 
lution of  measures  it  obliged  me  to  adopt,  but  also  from  the  renewals  of 
it  in  my  memory  on  the  frequent  occasions  I  have  had  of  doing  justice 
to  Mr.  Adams,  by  repeating  thisproof  of  his  fidelity  to  his  country,  and 
of  his  superiority  over  all  ordinary  considerations  when  the  safety  of 
that  was  brought  into  question. 

"  With  this  best  exertion  of  a  waning  memory  which  I  can  command, 
accept  assurances  of  my  constant  and  affectionate  friendship  and  re- 
spect." 


436  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  publication  of  this  letter  drew  forth  a  statement  by  the  editors 
of  the  National  Intelligencer,  authorized  by  Mr.  Adams  to  be  made,  and 
which  appeared  in  tbat  paper  of  October  21,  1828.  As  this  statement 
contains  sundry  important  facts  of  the  history  of  the  eventful  period  in 
which  they  occurred,  and  also  was  the  occasion  of  the  correspondence 
which  ensued  between  Mr.  Adams  and  the  citizens  of  Massachusetts 
which  afterward  took  place,  we  copy  it  entire. 

"  The  indistinctness  of  the  recollections  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  of  which 
the  letter  itself  feelingly  complains,  has  blended  together  three  distinct 
periods  of  time,  and  the  information  which  he  did  receive  from  Mr. 
Adams,  with  events  which  afterwards  occurred,  and  of  which  Mr.  Adams 
could  not  have  informed  him.  It  unfortunately  happens  that  this  error 
is  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  letter  itself.  It  says  :  '  Mr.  Adams  called 
on  me  'pending  the  embargo^  and  while  endeavors  were  making  to  obtain 
its  repeal.'  He  afterwards  says,  that  at  this  interview  Mr.  Adams, 
among  other  things,  said  '  he  had  information  of  the  most  unquestion- 
able certainty,  that  certain  citizens  of  the  eastern  states,  (I  think  he 
named  Massachusetts  particularly,)  were  in  negotiation,  with  agents  of 
the  British  government,  the  object  of  which  was  an  agreement  that  the 
New  England  states  should  take  no  farther  part  in  the  war  then  going 
on,'  &c. 

"The  embargo  was  enacted  on  the  22d  of  December,  1807,  and  re- 
pealed by  the  non-intercourse  act  on  the  1st  of  March,  1809.  The  war 
was  declared  in  June,  1812. 

''In  August,  1809,  Mr.  Adams  embarked  for  Eussia,  nearly  three 
years  before  the  declaration  of  war,  and  did  not  return  to  the  United 
States  till  August,  1817,  nearly  three  years  after  the  conclusion  of  the 
peace. 

"  Mr.  Madison  was  inaugurated  president  of  the  United  States  on  the 
4th  of  March,  1809. 

"  It  was  impossible,  therefore,  that  Mr.  Adams  could  have  given  any 
information  to  Mr.  Jefferson  of  negotiations  by  citizens  of  Massachu- 
setts with  British  agents,  during  the  war^  or  having  relation  to  it.  Mr. 
Adams  never  had  knowledge  of  such  negotiations. 

"  The  interview  to  which  Mr.  Jefferson  alludes,  took  place  on  the  15th 
of  March,  1808,  pending  the  embargo;  but,  at  the  session  of  congress 
before  the  substitution  for  it  of  the  non-intercourse  act.  The  informa- 
tion given  by  Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Jefferson,  had  only  an  indirect  refer- 
ence even  to  the  embargo,  and  none  to  any  endeavors  for  obtaining  its 
repeal.  It  was  the  substance  of  a  letter  from  the  governor  of  Nova 
Scotia  to  a  person  in  the  state  of  Massachusetts,  written  in  the  summer 
of  1807,  and  before  the  existence  of  the   embargo;  which  letter  Mr 


ADAMS    AND    GILES    CONTROVERSY.  437 

Adams  had  seen.  It  had  been  shown  to  him  without  any  injunction  of 
secrecy,  and  he  betrayed  no  confidence  in  communicating  its  purport  to 
Mr.  Jefferson.  Its  object  was  to  countenance  and  accredit  a  calumny 
then  extensively  prevailing,  among  the  enemies  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and 
the  opponents  of  his  administration,  that  he  and  his  measures  were  sub- 
servient to  France ;  and  it  alleged  that  the  British  government  were 
informed  of  a  plan,  determined  upon  by  France,  to  effect  the  conquest 
of  the  British  provinces  on  this  continent,  and  a  revolution  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  as  means  to  which  they  were  first  to  pro- 
duce war  between  the  United  States  and  England. 

''  From  the  fact  that  the  governor  of  Nova  Scotia  had  written  such  a 
letter  to  an  individual  in  Massachusetts,  connected  with  other  facts,  and 
with  movements  of  the  party  then  predominant  in  that  state,  Mr.  Adams 
and  Mr.  Jefferson  drew  their  inferences,  which  subsequent  events  doubt- 
less confirmed;  but  which  inferences  neither  Mr.  Jefferson  nor  Mr. 
Adams  then  communicated  to  each  other.  This  was  the  only  confiden- 
tial interview  which,  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  took 
place  between  him  and  Mr.  Adams.  It  took  place  first  at  the  request 
of  Mr.  Wilson  Carey  Nicholas,  then  a  member  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States,  a  confidential  friend  of  Mr.  Jefferson ; 
next,  of  Mr.  Robinson,  then  a  senator  from  Vermont;  and  lastly,  of 
Mr.  Giles,  then  a  senator  from  Virginia — which  request  is  the  only 
intervention  of  Mr.  Giles,  ever  known  to  Mr.  Adams,  between  him  and 
Mr.  Jefferson.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising,  that  no  such  interven- 
tion occurred  to  the  recollection  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  in   December,  1825. 

''  This  interview  was  in  March,  1808.  In  May,  of  the  same  year, 
Mr.  Adams  resigned  his  seat  in  the  senate  of  the  United  States.  At 
the  next  session  of  congress,  which  commenced  in  November,  1808,  Mr. 
Adams  was  a  private  citizen,  residing  at  Boston.  The  embargo  was 
still  in  force,  operating  with  extreme  pressure  upon  the  interests  of  the 
people,  and  was  wielded  as  a  most  effective  instrument,  by  the  party 
prevailing  in  the  state,  against  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson. 
The  people  were  constantly  instigated  to  resistance  against  it,  and  juries 
after  juries  acquitted  the  violators  of  it,  upon  the  ground  that  it  was 
unconstitutional,  assumed  in  the  face  of  a  solemn  decision  of  the  district 
court  of  the  United  States.  A  separation  of  the  union  was  openly 
stimulated  in  the  public  prints,  and  a  convention  of  delegates  of  the 
New  England  states,  to  meet  at  New  Haven,  was  intended  and  proposed. 
"Mr.  Giles  and  several  other  members  of  congress,  during  this  session, 
wrote  to  Mr.  Adams  confidential  letters,  informing  him  of  the  various 
measures  proposed  as  reinforcements  or  substitutes  for  the  embargo,  and 
soliciting  his  opinions  upon  the  subject.     He  answered  those  letters  with 


438  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

frankness  and  in  confidence.  He  earnestly  recommeLded  the  non-inter- 
course for  the  embargo;  and  in  giving  his  reasons  for  this  preference, 
was  necessarily  led  to  enlarge  upon  the  views  and  purposes  of  certain 
leaders  of  the  party  which  had  the  management  of  the  state  legislature 
in  their  hands.  He  urged  that  a  continuance  of  the  embargo  much 
longer  would  certainly  be  met  by  forcible  resistance,  supported  by  the 
legislature,  and  probably  by  the  judiciary  of  the  state.  That  to  quell 
that  resistance  if  force  should  be  resorted  to  by  the  government,  it 
would  produce  a  civil  war  ;  and  that,  in  that  event,  he  had  no  doubt  the 
leaders  of  the  party  would  secure  the  cooperation  with  them  of  Grreat 
Britain.  That  their  object  was,  and  had  been  for  several  years,  the  dis- 
solution of  the  union,  and  the  establishment  of  a  separate  confederation 
he  knew  from  unequivocal  evidence,  although  not  provable  in  a  court 
of  law ;  and  that,  in  the  case  of  a  civil  war,  the  aid  of  Great  Britain  to 
effect  that  purpose  would  be  as  surely  resorted  to,  as  it  would  be  indis- 
pensably necessary  to  the  design. 

"  That  these  letters  of  Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Giles  and  to  other  mem- 
bers of  congress,  were  read  or  shown  to  Mr.  Jefferson,  he  never  was 
informed.  They  were  written,  not  for  communication  to  him,  but  as 
answers  to  letters  of  his  qorrespondents,  members  of  congress,  soliciting 
his  opinions  upon  measures  in  deliberation  before  them,  and  upon  which 
they  were  to  act.  He  wrote  them  as  the  solicited  advice  of  friend  to 
friend,  both  ardent  friends  to  the  administration  and  to  their  country. 
He  wrote  them  to  give  to  the  supporters  of  the  administration  of  Mr. 
JefFertion  in  congress,  at  that  crisis,  the  best  assistance,  by  his  informa- 
tion and  opinions,  in  his  power.  He  had  certainly  no  objection  that 
they  should  be  communicated  to  Mr.  Jefferson ;  but  this  was  neither  his 
intention  nor  desire.  In  one  of  the  letters  to  Mr.  Giles,  he  repeated  an 
assurance  which  he  had  verbally  given  him  during  the  preceding  session 
of  congress,  that  he  had  for  his  support  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  administra- 
tion no  personal  or  interested  motive,  and  no  favor  to  ask  of  him  what- 
ever. 

"  That  these  letters  to  Mr.  Giles  wera  by  him  communicated  to  Mr. 
Jefferson,  Mr.  Adams  believes  from  the  import  of  this  letter  from  Mr. 
Jefferson,  now  first  published,  and  which  has  elicited  this  statement 
He  believes,  likewise,  that  other  letters  from  him  to  other  members  of 
congress,  written  during  the  same  session,  and  upon  the  same  subject, 
were  also  communicated  to  him;  and  that  their  contents,  after  a  lapse 
of  seventeen  years,  were  blended  confusedly  in  his  memory,  first  with 
the  information  given  by  Mr.  Adams  to  him  at  their  interview  in  March, 
1808,  nine  months  before;  and  next,  with  the  events  which  occurred 
during  the  subsequent  war^  and  of  which,  however  natural  as  a  sequel  to 


ADAMS    AND    GILES    CONTROVERSY.  489 

the  information  and  opinions  of  Mr.  Adams,  communicated  to  him  at 
these  two  preceding  periods,  he  could  not  have  received  the  information 
from  him." 

It  will  at  once  appear  to  the  reader,  that  the  matter  of  the  two  let- 
ters of  Mr.  Jefferson  is  irreconcilable.  His  more  discreet  friends  at 
the  time  deeply  regretted  and  censured  the  course  of  Mr.  Giles  in  pub- 
lishing the  extracts  of  the  letter  of  the  26th  of  December,  which  had 
been  the  occasion  of  calling  out  the  other ;  the  two  taken  together  show- 
ing conclusively  the  failure  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  memory  and  mental  facul- 
ties. They  saw  no  justification  for  thus  violating  the  sacredness  of  pri- 
vate correspondence  to  gratify  his  own  animosities.  Mr.  Giles  was  for 
a  time  suspected  of  not  having  correctly  represented  the  contents  of  the 
letter  from  which  he  published  extracts.  This  suspicion  was  founded 
upon  the  fact  of  his  having  suppressed  the  letter  of  the  25th,  which  bore 
testimony  to  Mr.  Adams'  "  fidelity  to  his  country,"  whereas  common 
justice  required  that  both  letters,  if  either,  should  have  been  given  to 
the  public. 

Mr,  Giles  gave  as  a  reason  for  not  publishing  the  first  of  the  two  let- 
ters, that  he  believed  it  *'  to  have  been  so  undue  and  unfortunate  an 
impression,  producing  so  many  palpable  errors,  as  that  its  publication 
would  have  done  no  less  injustice  to  Mr.  Jefferson   than   to  the  public." 

The  statement  in  the  Intelligencer  "  that  Mr.  Giles  and  other  mem- 
bers of  congress  wrote  to  Mr.  Adams  confidential  letters,  informing  him 
of  the  various  measures  proposed  as  reinforcements  or  substitutes  for 
the  embargo,  and  soliciting  his  opinions  on  the  subject ;"  and  that  "  he 
answered  those  letters  with  frankness  and  in  confidence,"  Mr.  Giles 
denied,  and  insinuated  that  Mr.  Adams  had  "  invented  the  extraordi- 
nary tale  to  screen  himself  from  imputations  he  could  not  otherwise 
avoid."  Whereupon  the  editors  of  the  Intelligencer  stated  that  Mr. 
Adams  had  read  to  them  from  his  letter-book  copies  of  his  letters  in 
answer  to  four  letters  of  Mr.  Giles,  during  the  session  of  1808-9. 

Mr.  Giles  having  in  one  of  his  communications  in  the  Richmond 
Enquirer,  used  the  name  of  T.  J.  Randolph  in  a  manner  deemed  by  Mr. 
Randolph  "  unmerited  and  uncourteous,"  the  latter  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  editors  of  that  paper,  justifying  himself  for  allowing  the  letter  of 
Mr.  Jefferson  to  be  used  "  to  remove  certain  false  impressions,  enter- 
tained by  the  public,  of  the  estimation  in  which  Mr.  Adams  was  held  by 
Mr.  Jefferson;"  explaining  that  part  of  the  letter  of  the  25th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1825,  in  which  Mr.  Jefferson  was  supposed  to  have  committed  errors 
in  consequence  of  the  failure  of  his  mind  and  memory ;  and  administer- 
ing some  severe  rebukes  to  Mr.  Giles. 

Mr.  Randolph  thus  explains  the  apparent  errors  in  the  letter  alluded 


i40  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

to :  "  Mr.  Jefferson  uses  the  expression  of  '  the  war  then  going  on,' 
and  again  '  at  the  close  of  the  war.'  Having  myself  heard  the  sub- 
stance of  this  letter  from  his  own  lips  so  often,  and  its  having  been  so 
long  familiar  to  me,  I  had  not,  perhaps,  sufficiently  adverted  to  the 
literal  construction  which  would  be  applied  to  these  words,  by  persons 
to  whom  the  subject  would  be  new.  In  the  first  expression,  he  alludes 
to  the  war  waged  by  the  belligerents  on  our  commerce,  and  the  war  of 
restrictive  measures  on  our  part.  In  the  latter  he  speaks  of  the  actual 
war  which  was  about  to  take  place,  and  which  the  whole  language  of  his 
correspondence  of  that  day  shows  that  he  believed  to  be  immediate  and 
inevitable.  How  otherwise  is  the  inconsistency  of  these  expressions 
with  the  following  to  be  accounted  for  ?  'I  saw  the  necessity  of  aban- 
doning it ;  and  instead  of  effecting  our  purpose  by  this  'peaceful  wea- 
pon, we  must  fight  it  out.'  If  the  first  expressions  are  to  be  taken 
literally,  and  not  figuratively,  great,  indeed,  must  have  been  the  wane 
of  mind  and  of  memory,  which  had  become  inadequate  to  detect  the 
striking  inconsistencies  of  so  short  a  letter ;  copying,  too,  from  the 
rough  draft,  (as  he  always  did,)  and  revising  carefully  everythicg  before 
it  passed  from  his  hands.  As  an  additional  evidence  that  those  words 
were  used  figuratively,  and  not  literally,  I  quote  from  a  letter  of  his, 
dated  Januaiy  28,  1809,  to  Mr.  Monroe,  when  the  events  here  spoken 
of  were  in  their  actual  transit,  the  following  expression  :  '  Our  peace 
and  prosperity  may  be  revived.'  This  taken  literally  would  likewise 
suppose  the  actual  existence  of  war ;  for  '  peace'  to  be  '  revived,'  must 
first  hare  been  lost,  and  its  opposite  condition,  war,  in  existence ;  and 
yet  I  presume  it  is  not  intended  to  be  insinuated  that  this  fatuity 
existed  in  1809." 

Mr.  Randolph  also  states  that  Mr.  Giles  omitted  one  important  sen- 
tence in  publishing  the  extracts  from  the  letter  of  December  26,  1825  : 
that  sentence  was  the  first,  as  follows  :  "  I  wrote  you  a  letter  yesterday 
of  which  you  will  be  free  to  make  what  use  you  please.  This  will  con- 
tain matter  not  intended  for  the  public  eye."  "  Yet,"  says  Mr.  Ran- 
dolph, "  this  letter  was  shown  immediately  after  its  receipt,  [see  Mr. 
Jefferson's  letter  of  January  21,  1826,]  and,  I  am  well  assured,  was 
openly  alluded  to  in  a  debate  in  the  senate,  the  letter  being  at  the  very 
moment  in  the  pocket  of  the  speaker  who  based  his  attack  on  Mr.  Adams 
on  the  contents  of  that  letter." 

Mr.  Giles  having  stated  that  "  Mr.  Jefferson  never  entertained  a  good 
opinion  of  Mr.  Adams,  perhaps  for  some  time  before,  and  certainly 
never  after  his  message  to  congress,  in  December,  1825,"  Mr.  Randolph, 
in  reply,  refers  to  the  letter  before  mentioned,  of  January  21,  1826. 
It  was  probably  an  answer  to  one  from  a  friend  who  had  informed  him 


ADAMS    AND    GILES    CONTROVERSY.  441 

of  the  use  Mr.  Giles  had  made  of  his  letter  of  December  preceding. 
The  following  are  extracts  from  it : 

"Dear  Sir:  Your  favor  of  Jan.  15th,  is  received,  and  I  am  entirely 
sensible  of  the  kindness  of  your  motives  which  suggested  the  caution  it 
recommended ;  but  I  believe  what  I  have  done,  is  the  only  thing  I 
could  have  done  with  honor  and  conscience.  Mr.  Giles  requested  me 
to  state  a  fact  which  he  knew  himself,  and  of  which  he  knew  me  to  bo 
possessed.  What  use  he  intended  to  make  of  it,  I  knew  not,  nor 
have  I  a  right  to  inquire,  or  to  indicate  any  suspicion  that  he  would 
make  an  unfair  one ;  that  was  his  concern,  not  mine ;  and  his  character 
was  sufficient  to  sustain  the  responsibility  for  it.  *  *  *  With  his 
personal  controversies  I  have  nothing  to  do.  I  never  took  any  part  in 
them,  or  in  those  of  any  other  person  :  add  to  this,  that  the  statement 
I  have  given  him  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Adams,  is  entirely  honorable  to 
him,  in  every  sentiment  and  fact  it  contains.  There  is  not  a  word  in  it 
which  I  would  wish  to  recall ;  it  is  one  which  Mr.  Adams  himself 
might  willingly  quote,  did  he  need  to  quote  any  thing.  It  was  simply, 
that,  during  the  continuance  of  the  embargo,  Mr.  Adams  informed  me 
of  a  combination,  (without  naming  any  one  concerned  in  it,)  which  had 
for  its  object  the  severance  of  the  union,  for  a  time  at  least ;  that  Mr. 
Adams  and  myself,  not  being  then  in  the  habit  of  mutual  consultation 
and  confidence,  I  considered  it  as  the  stronger  proof  of  the  purity  of 
his  patriotism,  which  was  able  to  lift  him  above  all  party  passions  when 
the  safety  of  his  country  was  endangered ;  nor  have  I  kept  the  honor- 
able fact  to  myself;  during  the  late  canvass  particularly,  I  had  more 
than  once  occasion  to  quote  it  to  persons  who  were  expressing  opinions 
respecting  him,  of  which  this  was  a  direct  corrective.  I  have  never 
entertained  for  Mr.  Adams  any  but  sentiments  of  esteem  and  respect ; 
and  if  we  have  not  thought  alike  on  political  subjects,  I  yet  never 
doubted  the  honesty  of  his  opinions ;  of  which  the  letter  in  question, 
if  published,  will  be  an  additional  proof.  Still  I  recognize  your  friend- 
ship in  suggesting  a  review  of  it."  ,- 

Doubts  having  been  expressed  of  the  existence  of  the  letters  said  to 
have  been  written  to  Mr.  Adams  by  Mr.  Giles,  during  the  session  of 
1808-9,  they  were  procured  from  Mr.  Adams'  domicile  in  Massachu- 
setts, and  published.  In  them  Mr.  Giles  speaks  of  the  "  purity  and 
disinterestedness"  of  Mr.  Adams — expresses  the  hope  that  he  would 
"  again  appear  upon  the  theater  of  public  life" — and  applauds  him  for 
his  "judicious  and  independent  conduct." 


442  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


CHAPTER  XXXIY. 

POLITICS    OF    1808. MR.    ADAMS  AND    THE   BOSTON  FEDERALISTS. CHARGE 

OF    AN    ATTEMPT    TO    DIVIDE    THE    UNION. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  the  publication  of  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Jefierson  of  the  25th  of  December,  1825,  to  Mr.  Giles,  detailing  the 
disclosures  of  Adams  respecting  the  designs  of  the  eastern  federalists 
in  1808,  and  the  statement,  authorized  by  Mr.  Adams,  and  published 
in  the  National  Intelligencer,  produced  considerable  excitement  among 
the  leading  men  of  Massachusetts,  and,  at  least  for  a  time,  alienated  in 
a  measure  the  aifections,  and  impaired  the  confidence  and  esteem  of 
many  of  the  friends  of  Mr.  Adams  in  that  state. 

On  the  26th  of  November,  1828,  thirteen  citizens  of  Massachusetts 
residing  in  and  near  Boston,  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Adams,  asking 
from  him  such  a  full  and  precise  statement  of  the  facts  and  evidence 
relating  to  this  accusation,  as  might  enable  them  fairly  to  meet  and 
answer  it.  Although  they  did  not  claim  the  title  of  "  leaders  "  of  any 
party  in  Massachusetts,  they  said  they  were  associated  in  politics  with 
the  party  alluded  to ;  some  of  them  had  concurred  in  all  the  measures 
adopted  by  that  party ;  and  all  of  them  warmly  approved  and  support- 
ed those  measures.  They  requested  Mr.  Adams  to  state,  who  were 
the  persons,  designated  as  leaders  of  the  party  prevailing  in  Massachusetts, 
whose  object  was  a  dissolution  of  the  union,  and  the  establishment  of  a 
separate  confederation;  and  what  was  the  evidence. 

These  citizens  say  :  "  A  charge  of  this  nature,  coming  as  it  does  from 
the  first  magistrate  of  the  nation,  acquires  an  importance  which  we  can 
not  afi'ect  to  disregard;  and  it  is  one  which  we  ought  not  to  leare 
unanswered.  We  are  therefore  constrained,  by  a  regard  to  our  deceased 
friends,  and  to  our  posterity,  as  well  as  by  a  sense  of  what  is  due  to  our 
own  honor,  most  solemnly  to  declare,  that  we  have  never  known  nor 
suspected  that  the  party  which  prevailed  in  Massachusetts  in  the  year 
1808,  or  any  other  party  in  this  state,  ever  entertained  the  design  to 
produce  a  dissolution  of  the  union,  or  the  establishment  of  a  separate 
confederation.  It  is  impossible  for  us  in  any  other  manner  to  refute^ 
or  even  to  answer  this  charge,  until  we  see  it  fully  and  particularly 
stated,  and  know  the  evidence  by  which  it  is  to  be  maintained." 

The  letter  was  signed  by  H.  G.  Otis,  Israel  Thorndike,  T.  H.  Per- 
kins, William  Prescott,  Daniel  Sargent,  John  Lowell,  Wm.  Sullivan, 
Charles  Jackson,  Warren  Dutton,  Benj.  Pickman,  Henry  Cabot,  C.  C- 


MR.    ADAMS    AND    THE    BOSTON    FEDERALISTS.  443 

Parsons,  and  Franklin  Dexter,  The  last  three  were  the  sons  and 
representatives  of  George  Cabot,  Theophilus  Parsons,  and  Samuel 
Dexter,  deceased. 

The  reply  of  Mr.  Adams  is  of  such  length  as  to  forbid  its  insertion 
entire.  He  said  he  could  not  recognize  the  persons  who  addressed  him 
as  the  representatives  of  the  party  alluded  to;  and  he  undertook  to 
show  the  impropriety  of  answering  their  interrogatories.  He  does,  how- 
ever, detail  some  of  the  facts  upon  which  he  founds  the  charge  of  a 
design  to  separate  from  the  union.     He  says : 

"  The  simple  fact  of  which  I  apprised  Mr.  Jefferson  was,  that,  in  the 
summer  of  1807,  about  the  time  of  what  was  sometimes  called  the  affair 
of  the  Leopard  and  the  Chesapeake,  I  had  seen  a  letter  from  the  gov- 
ernor of  Nova  Scotia  to  a  person  in  Massachusetts,  affirming  that  the 
British  government  had  certain  information  of  a  plan  by  that  of  France, 
to  concper  the  British  possessions,  and  to  effect  a  revolution  in  the 
United  States,  by  means  of  a  war  between  them  and  Great  Britain. 
As  .the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  were  in  1807  at  peace,  a  cor- 
respondence with  the  governor  of  Nova  Scotia,  held  by  any  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  imported  no  violation  of  law ;  nor  could  the  corres- 
pondent be  responsible  for  any  thing  which  the  governor  might  write. 
But  my  inferences  from  this  fact  were,  that  there  existed  between  the 
British  Government  and  the  party  in  Massachusetts  opposed  to  Mr. 
Jefferson,  a  channel  of  communication  through  the  governor  of  Nova 
Scotia,  which  he  was  exercising  to  inflame  their  hatred  against  France, 
and  their  jealousies  against  their  own  government.  The  letter  was 
not  to  any  leader  of  the  federal  party ;  but  I  had  no  doubt  it  had  been 
shown  to  some  of  them,  as  it  had  been  to  me,  without  injunction  of 
secrecy ;  and,  as  I  supposed,  with  a  view  to  convince  me  that  this  con- 
spiracy between  Napoleon  and  Mr.  Jefferson  really  existed.  How  that 
channel  of  communication  might  be  further  used,  was  matter  of  conjec- 
ture ;  for  the  mission  of  John  Henry  was  nine  months  after  my  inter- 
view with  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  precisely  at  the  time  I  was  writing  to  my 
friends  in  congress  the  letters  urging  the  substitution  of  the  non-inter- 
course for  the  embargo.  Of  Mr.  Henry's  mission  I  knew  nothing  until 
it  was  disclosed  by  himself  in  1812. 

"It  was  in  these  letters  of  1808  and  1809,  that  I  mentioned  the 
design  of  certain  leaders  of  the  federal  party  to  effect  a  dissolution  of 
the  union,  and  the  establishment  of  a  northern  confederacy.  This 
design  had  been  formed  in  the  winter  of  1803  and  4,  immediately  after, 
and  as  a  consequence  of  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana.  Its  justifying 
causes  to  those  who  entertained  it  were,  that  the  annexation  of  Louisiana 
to  the  union  transcended  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  government 


444  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  the  United  States;  that  it  formed  in  fact  a  new  confederacy  to  which 
the  states,  united  by  the  former  compact,  were  not  bound  to  adhere; 
that  it  was  oppressive  to  the  interests  and  destructive  to  the  influence 
of  the  northern  section  of  the  confederacy,  whose  right  and  duty  it 
therefore  was  to  secede  from  the  new  body  politic,  and  to  constitute  one 
of  their  own.  This  plan  was  so  far  matured,  that  the  proposal  had  been 
made  to  an  individual  to  permit  himself  at  the  proper  time,  to  be  placed 
at  the  head  of  the  military  movements,  which  it  was  foreseen  would  be 
necessary  for  carrying  it  into  execution.  In  all  this  there  was  no  overt 
act  of  treason.  In  the  abstract  theory  of  our  government,  the  obedience 
of  the  citizen  is  not  due  to  an  unconstitutional  law.  He  may  lawfully 
resist  its  execution.  If  a  single  individual  undertakes  this  resistance, 
our  constitutions,  both  of  the  United  States,  and  of  each  separate  state, 
have  provided  a  judiciary  power,  judges,  and  juries,  to  decide  between 
the  individual  and  the  legislative  act  which  he  has  resisted  as  unconsti- 
tutional. But  let  us  suppose  the  case  that  the  legislative  acts  of  one  or 
more  states  of  this  union  are  passed,  conflicting  with  acts  of  congress, 
and  commanding  the  resistance  of  their  citizens  against  them,  and  what 
else  can  be  the  result  but  war — civil  war  ?  And  is  not  that  de  facto  a 
dissolution  of  the  union,  so  far  as  the  resisting  states  are  concerned  ? 
And  what  would  be  the  condition  of  every  citizen  of  the  resisting  states  ? 
Bound  by  the  double  duty  of  allegiance  to  the  union  and  to  the  state, 
he  would  be  crushed  between  the  upper  and  nether  millstone,  with  the 
performance  of  every  civic  duty  converted  into  a  crime,  and  guilty  of 
treason,  by  every  act  of  obedience  to  the  law." 

Mr.  Adams  said  his  opinion  was,  that  the  power  of  annexing  Louisiana 
to  the  union  had  not  been  delegated  to  congress  by  the  constitution ; 
and  this  was  recorded  on  the  journals  of  the  senate,  of  which  he  was 
then  a  member.  The  bills,  however,  making  appropriations  for  carrying 
the  convention  into  eff'ect,  and  for  enabling  the  president  to  take  posses- 
sion of  the  ceded  territory,  which  were  opposed  by  those  who  had  voted 
against  the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  he  had  warmly  and  cordially  sup- 
ported. 

The  following  paragraphs  are  given  on  account  of  the  constitutional 
opinions  expressed  in  them,  in  relation  to  the  purchase  and  annexation 
of  Louisiana,  and  to  the  secession  of  states  : 

"I  had  no  doubt  of  the  constitutional  power  to  make  the  treaties.  It 
is  expressly  delegated  in  the  constitution.  The  power  of  making  the 
stipulated  payment  for  the  cession,  and  of  taking  possession  of  the  ceded 
territory,  was  equally  unquestioned  by  me ; — they  were  constructive 
powers,  but  I  thought  them  fairly  incidental,  and  necessarily  consequent 
upon  the  power  to  make  the  treaty.     But  the  power  of  annexing  the  in- 


MR.    ADAMS    ANL    THE    BOSTON    FEDERALISTS.  445 

habitants  of  Louisiana  to  the  union,  of  conferring  upon  them  m  a  mass, 
all  the  rights,  and  requiring  of  them  all  the  duties  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  it  appeared  to  me  had  not  been  delegated  to  congress  by 
the  people  of  the  union,  and  could  not  have  been  delegated  by  them, 
without  the  consent  of  the  people  of  Louisiana  themselves.  I  thought 
they  required  an  amendment  of  the  constitution,  and  a  vote  of  the 
people  of  Louisiana;  and  I  offered  to  the  senate  resolutions  for  carrying 
both  those  measures  into  effect,  which  were  rejected. 

"  It  has  been  recently  ascertained,  by  a  letter  from  Mr.  Jefferson  to 
Mr.  Dunbar,  written  in  July,  1803,  after  he  had  received  the  treaties, 
and  convened  congress  to  consider  them,  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  treaties 
could  not  be  carried  into  effect  without  an  amendment  to  the  constitu- 
tion ;  and  that  the  proposal  for  such  an  amendment  would  be  the  first 
measure  adopted  by  them  at  their  meeting.  Yet  Mr.  Jefferson,  presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  did  approve  the  acts  of  congress,  assuming 
the  power  which  he  had  so  recently  thought  not  delegated  to  them,  and, 
as  the  executive  of  the  union,  carried  them  into  execution. 

"  Thus  Mr.  Jefferson,  president  of  the  United  States,  the  federal 
members  of  congress,  who  opposed  and  voted  against  the  ratification  of 
the  treaties,  and  myself,  all  concurred  in  the  opinion,  that  the  Louisiana 
cession  treaties  transcended  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States.  But  it  was,  after  all,  a  question  of  constructive 
power.  The  power  of  making  the  treaty  was  expressly  given  without 
limitation.  The  sweeping  clause,  by  which  all  powers  necessary  and 
proper  for  carrying  into  effect  those  expressly  delegated,  may  be  under- 
stood as  unlimited.  It  is  to  be  presumed,  that,  when  Mr.  Jefferson  ap- 
proved and  executed  the  acts'  of  congress  assuming  the  doubtful  power, 
he  had  brought  his  mind  to  acquiesce  in  this  somewhat  latitudinarian 
construction.  I  opposed  it  as  long  and  as  far  as  my  opposition  could 
avail.  I  acquiesced  in  it  after  it  had  received  the  sanction  of  all  the  or- 
ganized authority  of  the  union,  and  the  tacit  acquiescence  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States  and  of  Louisiana.  Since  which  time,  I  have  con- 
sidered the  question  as  irrevocably  settled. 

"  But,  in  reverting  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  all  our  constitu- 
tions, that  obedience  is  not  due  to  an  unconstitutional  law,  and  that  its 
execution  may  be  lawfully  resisted,  you  must  admit,  that,  had  the  laws 
of  congress  for  annexing  Louisiana  to  the  union  been  resisted,  by  the 
authority  of  one  or  more  of  the  states  of  the  then  existing  confederacy, 
as  unconstitutional^  that  resistance  might  have  been  carried  to  the  ex- 
tent of  dissolving  the  union,  and  of  forming  a  new  confederacy ;  and 
that,  if  the  consequences  of  the  cession  had  been  so  oppressive  upon 
New  England  and  the  north,  as  was  apprehended  by  the  federal  leaders. 


446  THE    AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

to  whose  conduct  at  that  time  all  these  observations  refer,  the  project 
which  they  did  then  form  of  severing  the  union,  and  establishing  a 
northern  confederacy,  would,  in  their  application  of  the  abstract  principle 
to  the  existing  state  of  things,  have  been  justifiable.  In  their  views, 
therefore,  I  impute  to  them  nothing  which  it  could  be  necessary  for  them 
to  disavow  :  and,  accordingly,  these  principles  were  distinctly  and  ex- 
plicitly avowed,  eight  years  afterwards,  by  my  excellent  friend,  Mr. 
Quincy,  in  his  speech  upon  the  admission  of  Louisiana,  as  a  state,  into 
the  union.  Whether  he  had  any  knowledge  of  the  practical  project  of 
1803  and  4,  I  know  not ;  but  the  argument  of  his  speech,  in  which  be 
referred  to  my  recorded  opinions  upon  the  constitutional  power,  was 
an  eloquent  exposition  of  the  justifying  causes  of  that  project,  as  I 
had  heard  them  detailed  at  the  time.  That  project,  I  repeat,  had  gone 
to  the  length  of  fixing  upon  a  militai:y  leader  for  its  execution ;  and 
although  the  circumstances  of  the  times  never  admitted  of  its  execution, 
nor  even  of  its  full  development,  I  had  yet  no  doubt,  in  1808  and  1809, 
and  have  no  doubt  at  this  time,  that  it  is  the  key  to  all  the  great  move- 
ments of  these  leaders  of  the  federal  party  in  New  England,  from  that 
time  forward,  till  its  final  catastrophe  in  the  Hartford  convention.  *  *  * 

"  It  was  this  project  of  1803  and  4,  which,  from  the  time  when  I  first 
took  my  seat  in  the  senate  of  the  United  States,  alienated  me  from  the 
secret  councils  of  those  leaders  of  the  federal  party.  I  was  never  inti- 
mated in  them.  I  approved  and  supported  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana ; 
and  from  the  first  moment  that  the  project  of  separation  was  made 
known  to  me,  I  opposed  to  it  a  determined  and  inflexible  resistance. 
#  #  *  ]yj^  principles  do  not  admit  the  right  even  of  the  people,  still  less 
the  legislature  of  any  one  state  in  the  union,  to  secede  at  pleasure  from 
the  union.  No  provision  is  made  for  the  exercise  of  this  right,  either  by 
the  federal  or  any  of  the  state  constitutions.  The  act  of  exercising  it, 
presupposes  a  departure  from  the  principle  of  compact,  and  a  resort  to 
that  of  force, 

"  If,  in  the  exercise  of  their  respective  functions,  the  legislative,  ex- 
ecutive, and  judicial  authorities  of  the  union  on  one  side,  and  of  one  or 
more  states  on  the  other,  are  brought  into  direct  collision  with  each  other, 
the  relations  between  the  parties  are  no  longer  those  of  constitutional 
right,  but  of  independent  force.  Each  party  construes  the  compact  for 
itself.  The  constructions  are  irreconcilable  together.  There  is  no  um- 
pire between  them;  and  the  appeal  is  to  the  sword,  the  ultimate  arbiter 
of  right  between  independent  states,  but  not  between  the  members  of  one 
body  politic.  I  therefore  hold  it  as  a  principle  without  exception,  that 
whenever  the  constituted  authorities  of  a  state  authorize  resistance  to 
any  act  of  congress,  or  pronounce  it  unconstitutional,  they  do  thereby 


MR.    ADAMS    AND    THE   BOSTON    FEDERALISTS.  447 

declare  themselves  and  their  state  quoad  hoc  out  of  the  pale  of  the 
union.  That  there  is  no  supposable  case  in  which  the  people  of  a  state 
might  place  themselves  in  this  attitude,  by  the  primitive  right  of  insur- 
rection against  oppression,  I  will  not  affirm :  but  they  have  delegated  no 
such  power  to  their  legislatures  or  their  judges ;  and  if  there  be  such  a 
right,  it  is  the  right  of  an  individual  to  commit  suicide — the  right  of  an 
inhabitant  of  a  populous  city  to  set  fire  to  his  own  dwelling  house.  But 
to  those  who  think  that  each  state  is  a  sovereign  judge,  not  only  of  its 
own  rights,  but  of  the  extent  of  powers  conferred  on  the  general  govern- 
ment by  the  people  of  the  whole  union ;  and  that  each  state,  giving  its 
own  construction  to  the  constitutional  powers  of  congress,  may  array  its 
separate  sovereignty  against  every  act  of  that  body  transcending  this  es- 
timate of  their  powers — to  say  of  men  holding  these  principles,  that, 
for  the  ten  years  from  1804  to  1814,  they  were  intending  a  dissolution 
of  the  union,  and  the  formation  of  a  new  confederacy,  is  charging  them 
with  nothing  more  than  with  acting  up  to  their  own  principles." 

Mr.  Adams  then  proceeds  to  say':  "To  the  purposes  of  party  leaders 
intending  to  accomplish  the  dissolution  of  the  union  and  form  a  new  con- 
federacy, two  postulates  are  necessary :  First,  an  act  or  acts  of  congress 
which  may  be  resisted,  as  unconstitutional ;  and,  secondly,  a  state  of  ex- 
citement among  the  people  of  one  or  more  states  of  the  union,  sufficiently 
inflamed  to  produce  acts  of  the  state  legislatures  conflicting  with  the  acts 
of  congress.  Resolutions  of  the  legislatures  denying  the  powers  of  con- 
gress, are  the  first  steps  in  this  march  to  disunion ;  but  they  avail  no- 
thing without  subsequent  and  corresponding  action.  The  annexation  of 
Louisiana  to  the  union  was  believed  to  be  unconstitutional ;  but  it  pro- 
duced no  excitement  to  resistance  among  the  people.  Its  beneficial  con- 
sequences to  the  whole  union  were  soon  felt,  and  took  away  all  possibility 
of  holding  it  up  as  the  labarum  of  a  political  religion  of  disunion. 

"  The  projected  separation  met  with  other  disasters,  and  slumbered 
till  the  attack  of  the  Leopard  on  the  Chesapeake,  followed  by  the  orders 
in  council  of  11th  November,  1807,  led  to  the  embargo  of  the  22d  De- 
cember of  that  year.  The  first  of  these  events  brought  the  nation  to 
the  brink  of  war  with  Great  Britain  ;  and  there  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  the  second  (the  orders  in  council)  was  intended  as  a  measure  familiar 
to  the  policy  of  that  government,  to  sweep  our  commerce  from  the  ocean, 
carrying  into  British  ports  every  vessel  of  ours  navigating  upon  the  seas, 
and  holding  them,  their  cargoes,  and  their  crews  in  sequestration,  to  aid 
in  the  negotiation  of  Mr.  Bose,  and  bring  us  to  the  terms  of  the  British 
Cabinet.  This  was  precisely  the  period  at  which  the  governor  of  Nova 
Scotia  was  giving  to  his  correspondent  in  Massachusetts,  the  friendly 
warning  from  the  British  government  of  the  revolutionizing  and  conquer- 


448  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ing  plan  of  France,  which  was  comnmnicated  to  me,  and  of  which  I  ap- 
prised Mr.  Jefferson. 

"  The  embargo,  in  the  mean,  time,  had  been  laid,  and  had  saved  most 
of  our  vessels  and  seamen  from  the  grasp  of  the  British  cruisers.  It 
had  rendered  impotent  the  British  orders  in  council;  but  at  the  same 
time  it  had  choked  up  the  channels  of  our  own  commerce.  As  its  ope- 
ration bore  with  heavy  pressure  upon  the  commerce  and  navigation  of 
the  north,  the  federal  leaders  soon  began  to  clamor  against  it ;  then  to 
denounce  it  as  unconstitutional ;  and  then  to  call  upon  the  commercial 
states  to  concert  measures  among  themselves  to  resist  its  execution.  The 
question  made  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  embargo,  only  proved,  that, 
in  times  of  violent  popular  excitement,  the  clearest  delegation  of  a  power 
to  congress  will  no  more  shield  the  exercise  of  it  from  a  charge  of  usur- 
pation, than  that  of  a  power  the  most  remote,  implied  or  constructive. 
The  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  embargo  was  solemnly  argued 
before  the  district  court  of  the  United  States  at  Salem ;  and  although 
the  decision  of  the  judge  was  in  its  favor,  it  continued  to  be  argued  to 
the  juries  ;  and  even  when  silenced  before  them,  was  in  the  distemper  of 
the  times  so  infectious,  that  the  juries  themselves  habitually  acquitted 
those  charged  with  the  violation  of  that  law.  There  was  little  doubt, 
that,  if  the  constitutionality  had  been  brought  before  the  state  judiciary 
of  Massachusetts,  the  decision  of  the  court  would  have  been  against  the 
law. 

"  The  first  postulate  for  the  projectors  of  disunion  was  thus  secured. 
The  second  still  lingered ;  for  the  people,  notwithstanding  their  excite- 
ment, still  clung  to  the  union,  and  the  federal  majority  in  the  legislature 
was  very  small.  Then  was  brought  forward  the  first  project  for  a  con- 
vention of  delegates  from  the  New  England  states  to  meet  in  Connecti- 
cut ;  and  then  was  the  time  at  which  I  urged,  with  so  much  earnestness, 
by  letters  to  my  friends  at  Washington,  the  substitution  of  the  non-inter- 
course for  the  embargo. 

"  The  non-intercourse  was  substituted.  The  arrangement  with  Mr.  Er- 
skine  soon  after  ensued ;  and  in  August,  1809, 1  embarked  upon  a  public 
mission  to  E-ussia.  My  absence  from  the  United  States  was  of  eight 
years'  duration ;  and  I  returned  to  take  charge  of  the  state  department 
in  1 8 1 7.  The  rupture  of  Mr.  Erskine's  arrangement ;  the  abortive  mission 
of  Mr.  Jackson  ;  the  disclosures  of  Mr.  John  Henry ;  the  war  with  Great 
Britain ;  the  opinion  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  Massachusetts, 
that,  by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  no  power  was  given  either 
to  the  president  or  to  congress,  to  determine  the  actual  existence  of  the 
exigencies  upon  which  the  militia  of  the  several  states  may  be  employed  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States;  and  the  Hartford  convention; — all 


MR.  ADAMS  AND  THE  BOSTON  FEDERALISTS.  449 

happened  during  my  absence  from  this  country.  I  forbear  to  pursue 
the  'narrative.  The  two  postulates  for  disunion  were  nearly  consum- 
mated. The  int€U"position  of  a  kind  Providence,  restoring  peace  to  our 
country  and  to  the  world,  averted  the  most  deplorable  of  catastrophes, 
and  turning  over  to  the  receptacle  of  things  lost  upon  earth,  the  ad- 
journed convention  from  Hartford  to  Boston  extinguished  (by  the  mercy 
of  Heaven  may  it  be  foreyer  !)  the  projected  New  England  confederacy. 

"  It  is  not  improbable,  that,  at  some  future  day,  a  sense  of  solemn  duty 
to  my  country  may  require  me  to  disclose  the  evidence  which  I  do  possess, 
and  for  which  you  call.  But  of  that  day  the  selection  must  be  at  my  own 
judgment ;  and  it  may  be  delayed  till  I  myself  shall  have  gone  to  answer 
for  the  testimony  I  may  bear,  before  the  tribunal  of  your  God  and 
mine.  Should  a  disclosure  of  names  even  then  be  made  by  me,  it  will, 
if  possible,  be  made  with  such  reserve,  as  tenderness  to  the  feelings  of 
the  living,  and  to  the  families  and  friends  of  the  dead  may  admonish." 

Mr.  Adams  having  stated  in  his  reply,  that  "  it  would  have  been  more 
satisfactory  to  him  to  receive  the  inquiry  separately  from  each  indi- 
vidual," and  having  intimated  that  he  should  not  continue  correspond- 
ence with  them,  jointly,  the  thirteen  "  citizens  of  Massachusatts"  address 
their  rejoinder  "  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States."  Their  "  appeal" 
is  a  very  long  as  well  as  a  very  able  one  ;  and  however  conclusive  to  Mr. 
Adams  may  have  been  the  evidence  of  a  design  to  separate  from  the 
union,  a  perusal  of  the  appeal  can  hardly  fail  to  remove  from  the  mind 
of  an  impartial  reader,  any  suspicion  which  he  might  have  entertained, 
that  these  gentlemen  were  justly  chargeable  with  the  designs  imputed  by 
Mr.  Adams  to  "  certain  leaders'''  of  the  federal  party  in  Massachusetts. 

The  charge  so  often  made  against  the  state  of  Massachusetts  of  de- 
signs hostile  to  the  union,  the  appeal  pronounces  a  "  calumny;"  and  the 
writers,  in  vindicating  themselves  and  the  federal  party,  claim  it  as  a  right 
to  demand  of  their  accuser  the  grounds  of  the  accusation.  They  do  not 
see  any  good  reason  why  by  their  uniting  with  each  other  in  their  applica- 
tion, Mr.  Adams  should  be  authorized  to  disregard  their  claim.  And 
although  they  did  not  arrogate  to  themselves  the  title  of  "  leaders,"  yet 
having  "  avowed  such  a  close  political  connection  with  all  who  could  pro- 
bably have  been  included  in  that  appellation,  as  to  render  them  responsible 
for  all  their  political  measures  that  were  known  to  them,"  they  were 
interested,  and  entitled  to  make  this  demand  of  Mr.  Adams  ;  and  by  de- 
clining to  answer  their  interrogatories,  he  had  placed  himself  in  the  pre- 
dicament of  an  imjust  accuser. 

In  speaking  of  the  project  to  dissolve  the  union,  so  far  as  it  applied 
to  the  men  who  directed  the  affairs  of  Massachusetts,  and  to  the  mea- 
sures adopted,  these  gentlemen  said  it  "probably  existed  only  in  the 

29 


450  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

distempered  fancy  of  Mr.  Adams."  The  object  of  the  letter  of  the 
governor  of  Nova  Scotia,  he  supposed,  was  to  accredit  a  calumny,  that 
Mr.  Jeflfsrson  and  his  measures  were  subservient  to  France.  The 
British  government  had  been  informed  that  France  intended  to  conquer 
the  British  provinces  on  this  continent,  and  effect  a  revolution  in  the 
government  of  the  United  States ;  in  order  to  which,  a  war  was  to  be 
produced  between  the  United  States  and  Eqgland.  They  said  :  "  A 
letter  of  this  tenor  was  no  doubt  shown  to  Mr.  Adams,  as  we  must 
believe  upon  his  word.  The  discovery  would  not  be  surprising,  that  the 
British  as  well  as  French  officers  and  citizens,  in  a  time  of  peace  with 
this  country,  availed  themselves  of  many  channels  for  conveying  their 
speculations  and  stratagems  to  other  innocent  ears  as  well  as  to  those 
of  Mr.  Adams,  with  a  view  to  influence  public  opinion.  But  the  subject 
matter  of  the  letter  was  an  absurdity.  Who  did  not  know,  that,  in 
1807,  after  the  battle  of  Trafalgar,  the  crippled  navy  of  France  could 
not  undertake  to  transport  even  a  single  regiment  across  the  British 
channel  ?  And  if  the  object  was  the  conquest  of  the  British  provinces 
by  the  United  States  alone,  how  could  a  revolution  in  our  government, 
which  must  divide  and  weaken  it,  promote  that  end  ? 

"  The  folly  of  a  British  governor  in  attempting  to  give  currency  to  a 
story  which  savors  so  strongly  of  the  burlesque,  can  be  equalled  only 
by  the  credulity  of  Mr.  Adams  in  believing  it  calculated  to  produce 
effect ;  and  if  he  did  so  believe,  it  furnishes  a  criterion  by  which  to 
estimate  the  correctness  and  impartiality  of  his  judgment  concerning 
the  weight  and»the  application  of  the  other  evidence  which  he  still  with- 
holds, and  from  which  he  has  undertaken,  with  equal  confidence,  to 
draw  his  inferences.'  After  the  adjustment  of  the  diplomatic  prelimi- 
naries with  Mr.  Giles  and  others,  Mr.  Adams  communicated  nothing 
to  Mr.  Jefferson,  but  the  substance  of  the  Nova  Scotia  letter.  If  Mr. 
Adams  had  then  known  and  believed  in  the  '  project,'  (the  '  key'  to  all 
future  proceedings,)  it  is  incredible  that  it  should  not  have  been  deemed 
worthy  of  disclosure — at  that  time,  and  on  that  occasion." 

In  their  examination  of  the  alleged  project  of  1803  and  4,  they  say: 
"  In  the  first  place,  we  solemnly  disavow  all  knowledge  of  such  a  project, 
and  all  remembrance  of  the  mention  of  it,  or  of  any  plan  analagous  to 
it,  at  that  or  any  subsequent  period.  Secondly,  while  it  is  obviously 
impossible  for  us  to  controvert  evidence  of  which  we  are  ignorant,  we 
are  well  assured  it  must  be  equally  impossible  to  bring  any  facts  which 
can  be  considered  evidence  to  bear  upon  the  designs  or  measures  of 
those  who,  at  the  time  of  Mr.  Adams'  interview  with  Mr.  Jefferson,  and 
afterwards,  during  the  war,  took  an  active  part  in  the  public  affairs  of 
Massachusetts. 


CHARGE    OF    AN    ATTEMPT    TO    DIVIDE    THE    UNION.  451 

"  The  effort  discernible  throughout  this  letter,  to  connect  those  later 
events,  which  were  of  a  public  nature,  and  of  which  the  natural  and 
adequate  causes  were  public,  with  the  mysterious  project  known  only  to 
himself,  of  an  earlier  origin  and  distinct  source,  is  in  the  last  degree 
violent  and  disingenuous. 

"  The  cession  of  Louisiana  to  the  United  States,  when  first  promulged, 
was  a  theme  of  complaint  and  dissatisfaction  in  this  part  of  the  country. 
This  could  not  be  regarded  as  factious  or  unreasonable,  when  it  is 
admitted  by  Mr.  Adams,  that  Mr.  Jefferson  and  himself  entertained 
constitutional  scruples  and  objections  to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of 
cession.  Nothing,  however,  like  a  popular  excitement  grew  out  of  the 
measure ;  and  it  is  stated  by  Mr.  Adams,  that  this  project  *  slumbered'' 
until  the  period  of  the  embargo,  in  December,  1807.  Suppose  then,  for 
the  moment,  (what  we  have  not  a  shadow  of  reason  for  believing,  and 
do  not  believe,)  that  upon  the  occasion  of  the  Louisiana  treaty,  *  certain 
leaders,'  influenced  by  constitutional  objections,  (admitted  to  be  com- 
mon to  Mr,  Jefferson,  Mr.  Adams,  and  themselves,)  had  conceived  a 
project  of  separation,  and  of  a  northern  confederacy,  as  the  only  pro- 
bable counterpoise  to  the  manufacture  of  new  states  in  the  south,  does 
it  follow  that,  when  the  public  mind  became  reconciled  to  the  cession, 
and  the  beneficial  consequences  of  it  were  realized,  (as  it  is  conceded  by 
Mr.  Adams  was  the  case,)  these  same  *  leaders,'  whoever  they  might 
be,  would  still  cherish  the  embryo  project,  and  wait  for  other  contin- 
gencies to  enable  them  to  effect  it  ?  On  what  authority  can  Mr.  Adams 
assume  that  the  project  merely  '  slumbered'  for  years,  if  his  private 
evidence  applies  only  to  the  time  of  its  origin  ? 

*'  The  opposition  to  the  measures  of  government  in  1808,  arose  from 
causes  which  were  common  to  the  people,  not  only  of  New  England, 
but  of  all  the  commercial  states,  as  was  manifested  in  New  York,  Phila- 
delphia, and  elsewhere.  By  what  process  of  fair  reasoning,  then,  can 
that  opposition  be  referred  to,  or  connected  with,  a  plan  which  is  said 
to  have  originated  in  1804,  and  to  have  been  intended  to  embrace  merely 
a  northern  confederacy  ?  It  was  believed  in  New  England,  that  new 
members  could  not  be  added  to  the  confederacy  beyond  the  territorial 
limits  of  the  contracting  parties,  without  the  consent  of  those  parties. 
This  was  considered  as  a  fair  subject  of  remonstrance,  and  as  justifying 
proposals  for  an  amendment  of  the  constitution.  But  so  far  were  the 
federal  party  from  attempting  to  use  this  as  an  additional  incentive  to 
the  passions  of  the  day,  that,  in  a  report  made  to  the  legislature  of 
1813,  by  a  committee  of  which  Mr.  Adams'  'excellent  friend,'  Josiah 
Quincy,  was  chairman,  (Louisiana  having  at  this  time  been  admitted 
into  the  union,)  it  is  expressly  stated,  that  *  they  have  not  been  disposed 


452  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

to  connect  this  great  constitutional  question  with  the  transient  calami- 
ties of  the  day,  from  which  it  is  in  their  opinion  apparently  distin- 
guished, both  in  its  cause  and  consequence.'  " 

They  next  refer  to  the  embargo,  the  pretexts  for  which,  they  say, 
were  deemed  by  the  people  of  Massachusetts  a  mockery  to  their  suffer- 
ings. Owning  nearly  one-third  of  the  tonnage  of  the  United  States,  they 
felt  that  their  voice  ought  to  be  heard  in  what  related  to  its  security 
Depending  chiefly  on  their  foreign  trade  and  fisheries  for  support,  their 
situation  appeared  desperate.  They  could  not  consider  the  anniJiilation 
of  their  trade  as  included  in  the  power  to  regulate  it.  To  the  lawyers, 
statesmen,  and  citizens  of  Massachusetts,  the  embargo  law  appeared  a 
direct  violation  of  the  constitution.  War  followed,  and  aggravated  the 
public  distress.  The  state  was  deprived  of  garrisons  for  her  ports,  and 
was  left  during  the  war  nearly  defenseless;  her  citizens  subject  to 
incessant  alarm ;  her  territory  invaded ;  her  own  militia  arrayed,  and 
encamped  at  an  enormous  expense ;  pay  and  subsistence  from  her  nearly 
exhausted  treasury,  and  reimbursement  refused  even  to  this  day."  Hav- 
ing thus  described  the  condition  of  the  state,  the  address  proceeds : 

"  Now,  what,  under  the  pressure  and  excitement  of  these  measures^ 
was  the  conduct  of  the  federal  party,  with  the  military  force  of  the  state 
in  their  hands ;  with  the  encouragement  to  be  derived  from  a  conviction 
that  the  northern  states  were  in  sympathy  with  their  feelings  ?  Did 
they  resist  the  laws?  Not  in  a  solitary  instance.  Did  they  threaten  a 
separation  of  the  states?  Did  they  array  their  forces  with  a  show  of 
such  a  disposition  ?  Did  the  government  or  people  of  Massachusetts, 
in  any  one  instance,  swerve  from  their  allegiance  to  the  union  ?  The 
reverse  of  all  this  is  the  truth.  Abandoned  by  the  national  government, 
because  she  declined,  for  reasons  which  her  highest  tribunal  adjudged  to 
be  constitutional,  to  surrender  her  militia  into  the  hands  of  a  military 
prefect,  although  they  were  always  equipped,  and  ready  and  faithful 
under  their  own  ofi&cers,  she  nevertheless  clung  to  the  union  as  to  the 
ark  of  her  safety;  she  ordered  her  well  trained  militia  into  the  field; 
stationed  them  at  the  points  of  danger;  defrayed  their  expenses  from  her 
own  treasury;  and  garrisoned  with  them  her  national  forts.  All  her 
taxes  and  excises  were  paid  with  punctuality  and  promptness,  an  exam- 
ple by  no  means  followed  by  some  of  the  states,  in  which  the  cry  for 
war  had  been  loudest.  These  facts  are  recited  for  no  other  purpose  but 
that  of  preparing  for  the  inquiry,  what  becomes  of  Mr.  Adams'  '  key,' 
his  '  project,'  and  his  '  postulates  ?'  The  latter  were  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  to  use  his  own  language,  '  consummated.' 

"  Laws  unconstitutional  in  the  public  opinion  had  been  enacted.  The 
great  majority  of  an  exasperated  people  were  in  a  state  of  the  highest 


CHARGE  OF  AN   ATTEMPT   TO  DIVmE  THE  UNION.  453 

excitement.  The  legislature,  (if  his  word  be  taken,)  was  undor  *  the 
management  of  the  leaders.'  The  judicial  courts  were  on  their  side; 
and  the  juries  were,  as  he  pretends,  contaminated.  All  the  combusti- 
bles for  revolution  were  ready.  When,  behold !  instead  of  a  dismem- 
bered union,  military  movements,  a  northern  confederacy,  and  British 
alliance,  accomplished  at  the  favorable  moment  of  almost  total  prostra- 
tion of  the  credit  and  power  of  the  national  rulers,  a  small  and  peaceful 
deputation  of  grave  citizens,  selected  from  the  ranks  of  civil  life,  the 
legislative  councils,  assembled  at  Hartford.  There,  calm  and  collected, 
like  the  pilgrims  from  whom  they  descended,  and  not  unmindful  of  those 
who  achieved  the  independence  of  their  country,  they  deliberated  on  the 
most  effectual  means  of  preserving  for  their  fellow-citizens  and  their 
descendants  the  civil  and  political  liberty  which  had  been  won,  and 
bequeathed  to  them." 

The  "appeal"  then  enters  into  a  defense  of  that  convention, which, it 
is  alleged,  "  has  been  subjected  to  heavier  imputations,  under  an  entire 
deficiency,  not  only  of  proof,  but  of  probability,  than  ever  befel  any 
other  set  of  men,  discharging  merely  the  duties  of  a  committee  of  a 
legislative  body,  and  making  a  public  report  of  their  doings  to  their 
constituents.  These  imputations  have  never  assumed  a  precise  form; 
but  vague  opinions  have  prevailed  of  a  combination  to  separate  the 
union." 

The  grounds  on  which  the  convention  was  defended,  are  : 

First,  the  constitutional  right  of  a  state  to  appoint  delegates  to  such 
a  convention.  The  people  have  a  right,  in  an  orderly  and  peaceable 
manner,  to  assemble  to  consult  upon  the  common  good,  and  to  request 
of  their  rulers,  by  address,  petition,  or  remonstrance,  a  redress  of  wrongs 
and  grievances. 

Secondly,  the  propriety  and  expediency  of  exercising  that  right  at 
that  time.  The  grievances  suffered  and  .  the  dangers  apprehended,  and 
the  strong  excitement  which  they  produced  among  all  the  people,  ren- 
dered some  measures  for  their  relief  indispensably  necessary. 

Thirdly,  the  objects  intended  to  be  attained  by  it,  and  the  powers 
given  for  that  purpose,  by  the  state  to  the  delegates.  The  excitement 
was  great,  amounting  almost  to  desperation.  It  was  thought  the  mea- 
sures called  for  would  be  more  prudently  and  safely  conducted  by  the 
government  of  the  state,  than  by  unorganized  bodies^  of  individuals, 
excited  by  what  they  considered  unjust  and  oppressive  measures  of  the 
general  government.  No  secret  action  was  taken  on  the  subject  by  the 
legislature.  The  resolution  for  appointing  the  delegates  and  prescrib- 
ing their  powers  and  duties,  was  openly  discussed  and  passed ;  and  a 
copy  of  it  was  sent  to  the  governor  of  every  state  in  the  union. 


454  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Fourthly,  the  manner  in  which  the  delegates  exercised  their  power. 
This  appears  from  their  report,  which  was  immediately  published,  and 
which  set  forth  and  enforced,  by  elaborate  reasoning,  the  paramount 
importance  of  the  union  ;  and  there  was  no  just  ground  for  imputing  to 
them  covert  and  nefarious  designs.  The  main  and  avowed  object  of  the 
convention  was  the  defense  of  this  part  of  the  country  against  the  com- 
mon enemy.  New  England  was  destitute  of  national  troops ;  her  trea- 
sures were  exhausted ;  and  her  taxes  drawn  into  the  national  coffers. 

The  appeal  says  farther :  "  The  burden  of  that  report  consisted  in 
recommending  an  application  to  congress  to  permit  the  states  to  provide 
for  their  own  defense,  and  to  be  indemnified  with  the  expense,  by  reim- 
bursement, of  at  least  a  portion  of  their  own  money.  This  convention 
adjourned  early  in  January.  On  the  27th  of  the  same  month,  an  act  of 
congress  was  passed,  which  gave  to  the  state  governments  the  very  power 
which  was  sought  by  Massachusetts,  viz  :  that  of  raising,  organizing, 
and  ofl&cering  state  troops,  to  be  employed  in  the  state  raising  the  same, 
or  in  an  adjoining  state,  and  providing  for  their  pay  and  subsistence. 
This,  we  repeat,  was  the  most  important  object  aimed  at  by  the  institu- 
tion of  the  convention,  and  by  the  report  of  that  body.  *  *  *  j^ 
is  indeed  grievous  to  perceive  Mr.  Adams  condescending  to  intimate 
that  the  convention  was  adjourned  to  Boston,  and,  in  a  strain  of  rheto- 
rical pathos,  connecting  his  imaginary  plot,  then  at  least  in  the  thirteenth 
year  of  its  age,  with  the  catastrophe  which  awaited  the  ultimate  pro- 
ceedings of  the  convention.  That  assembly  adjourned  without  day^ 
after  making  its  report.  It  was  ipso  facto  dissolved,  like  other  com- 
mittees. One  of  its  resolutions  did  indeed  purport,  that  '  if  the  appli- 
cation of  these  states  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  should  be 
unsuccessful,  and  peace  should  not  be  concluded,  and  the  defense  of 
these  states  should  be  neglected  as  it  has  been  since  the  commencement 
of  the  war,  it  will  be,  in  the  opinion  of  this  convention,  expedient  for 
the  legislatures  of  the  several  states,  to  appoint  delegates  to  another 
convention^  to  meet  at  Boston  on  the  third  Tuesday  of  June  next,  with 
such  powers  and  instructions  as  the  exigency  of  a  crisis  so  momentous 
may  require.' " 

The  "  appeal"  concludes  as  follows  :  "  The  causes  of  past  controver- 
sies, passing,  as  they  were,  to  oblivion,  among  existing  generations,  and 
arranging  themselves,  as  they  must  do,  for  the  impartial  scrutiny  of 
future  historians,  the  revival  of  them  can  be  no  less  distasteful  to  the 
public  than  painful  to  us.  Yet  it  could  not  be  expected,  that  while  Mr. 
Adams,  from  his  high  station  sends  forth  the  unfounded  suggestions  of 
his  imagination  or  his  jealousy,  as  materials  for  present  opinion  and 
future  history,  we  should,  hy  silence^  give  countenance  to  his  charges ;  nor 


CHARGE  OF  AN  ATTEMPT  TO  DIVIDE  THE  UNION.  455 

that  we  should  neglect  to  vindicate  ourselves,  our  associates,  and  our 
fathers." 

These  extracts  from  the  letter  of  Mr.  Adams,  and  the  appeal  of  his 
opponents,  have  been  extended  to  great  length :  they  are,  however,  not 
more  copious  than  justice  to  the  parties  seemed  to  require.  Scarcely 
ever  has  there  been  in  this  country  a  political  excitement  so  incessant  and 
so  intense,  and  for  an  equal  period  of  time,  as  from  1807  to  1814.  No 
political  assembly  ever  obtained  a  more  odious  notoriety  than  the  Hart- 
ford convention.  It  was  extensively  believed  at  the  time,  and  is  by 
many  even  at  this  day,  to  have  had  treasonable  designs.  Facts  and  cir- 
cumstances existed  which  afforded  ground  for  the  suspicions  so  generally 
entertained.  It  is,  however,  but  just  to  say,  that  no  evidence  has  ever 
been  elicited  upon  which  that  convention  can  be  convicted  of  intentions 
hostile  to  the  union. 

But  the  sequel  to  this  controversy  has  not  yet  been  given.  William 
Plumer,  a  senator  in  congress  from  Hew  Hampshire  in  1803  and  1804, 
in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Adams  of  the  20th  of  December,  1828,  states,  that, 
during  that  session  of  congress,  several  federalists,  senators,  and  repre- 
sentatives, from  the  New  England  States,  informed  him,  at  different 
times  and  places,  that  they  thought  it  necessary  to  establish  a  separate 
government  in  New  England.  He  says :  "  Just  before  that  session  cf 
congress  closed,  one  of  the  gentlemen  to  whom  I  have  alluded,  informed 
me  that  arrangements  had  been  made  to  have  the  next  autumn,  in  Bos- 
ton, a  select  meeting  of  the  leading  federalists  in  New  England,  to  con- 
sider and  recommend  the  measures  necessary  to  form  a  system  of  govern- 
ment for  the  northern  states,  and  that  Alexander  Hamilton,  of  New 
York,  had  consented  to  attend  that  meeting."  And  he  says  farther,  that 
the  gentlemen  who  had  informed  him  of  the  contemplated  meeting,  told 
him  at  the  next  session  of  congress,  that  the  death  of  Mr.  Hamilton  had 
prevented  the  meeting,  but  the  project  was  not  and  would  not  be 
abandoned.     Mr.  Plumer  adds  : 

"  I  owe  it  to  you  as  well  as  to  myself,  to  state  explicitly,  tliat  in  the 
session  of  congress  in  the  winter  of  1803  and  1804, 1  was  myself  in  favor 
of  forming  a  separate  government  in  New  England,  and  wrote  several 
confidential  letters  to  a  few  of  my  friends  and  correspondents  recommend- 
ing the  measure.  But  afterwards,  upon  maturely  considering  the  sub- 
ject, I  was  fully  convinced  that  my  opinion  in  favor  of  separation,  was  the 
most  erroneous  that  I  ever  formed  upon  political  subjects.  *  *  *  When 
the  same  project  was  revived  in  1808  and  1809,  during  the  embargo  and 
non-intercourse,  and  afterwards,  during  the  war  of  1812,  I  used  every 
effort  in  my  power,  both  privately  and  publicly,  to  defeat  tlie  attempt 
then  made  to  establish  a  separate  independent  government  in  the  north- 
ern states." 


456  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Mr.  Adams  having  said  in  his  letter  to  the  federalists,  that  "  this  plan 
had  been  so  far  matured  that  the  proposal  had  been  made  to  an  indivi- 
dual to  permit  himself  at  the  proper  time  to  be  placed  at  the  head  of 
the  military  movements  which  it  was  foreseen  would  be  necessary 
for  carrying  it  into  execution;"  and  Mr.  Plumer  having  named  Mr. 
Hamilton  as  that  individual,  James  A.  Hamilton  addressed  Mr.  Adams 
inquiring  whether  he  was  in  possession  of  any  evidence  of  his  father's 
having  consented  to  attend  the  alleged  meeting  at  Boston,  or  been  con- 
cerned in  a  project  to  effect  the  dissolution  of  the  union  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  northern  confederacy. 

In  reply,  Mr.  Adams  says  he  received  his  information,  to  the  best  of 
his  recollection,  from  Uriah  Tracy,  then  a  senator  from  Connecticut,  or 
from  another  member  of  congress  who  was  present,  both  since  deceased. 
And  after  the  close  of  the  session,  being  at  New  York,  he  was  informed 
by  Kufus  King,  that  a  person  had  that  day  conversed  with  him  and  also 
with  Mr.  Hamilton's  father,  in  favor  of  the  project,  but  that  both  had 
disapproved  of  it.  Mr.  Adams  expressed  his  belief  in'  the  statement  of 
Mr.  Plumer ;  but  from  the  information  given  him  by  Mr.  King,  he 
believed  that,  in  consenting  to  attend  the  meeting,  Mr.  Hamilton's  pur- 
pose was  to  dissuade  the  parties  concerned  from  the  undertaking.  He 
also  declared  the  belief,  that  the  project  had  been  continued  or  resumed 
until  the  time  of  the  meeting  of  the  Hartford  convention,  in  1814. 

On  the  appearance  of  this  letter  of  Mr.  Adams,  Judge  Gould,  of  Con- 
necticut, son-in-law  of  Mr.  Tracy,  addressed  certain  questions  to  James 
Hillhouse,  co- senator  with  Mr.  Tracy,  and  to  the  other  surviving  mem- 
bers of  congress  in  1803  and  1804,  John  Davenport,  John  Cotton  Smith, 
S.  Baldwin,  B.  Tallmadge,  and  Calvin  Goddard,  who  were  familiar  and 
confidential  friends  of  Mr.  Tracy,  and  of  the  same  political  party ;  and 
who  declared  in  their  answers  to  Judge  Gould,  that  Mr.  Tracy  had  never 
spoken  to  them  of  the  alleged  project;  nor  had  they  any  reason  to  believe 
that  such  a  project  had  ever  existed. 

Judge  Gould  transmitted  these  letters  to  the  New  York  Evening  Post 
for  publication,  accompanied  by  a  letter  of  his  own  to  the  editor,  con- 
taining a  caustic  review  of  the  disclosures  of  Mr.  Adams.  He  says  :  "  It 
is  particularly  worthy  of  observation,  that  Mr.  Adams'  disclosures  against 
the  federal  party,  in  the  form  in  which  he  has  chosen  to  present  them  to 
the  public,  are,  even  if  untrue,  absolutely  incapable  of  direct  disproof  or 
positive  contradiction.  This  remark  is  equally  applicable  to  all  the 
statements  which  have  been  published  on  this  subject,  under  his  name  or 
avowed  sanction.  *  *  *  Thus,  although  he  has  implicated  in  his 
project  an  important,  and  as  he  represents  it,  a  formidable  portion  of  the 
federal  party,  yet  as  he  has  avoided,  except  in  a  single  instance,  (which 


CHARGE    OF    AN    ATTEMPT   TO    DIVIDE    THE    UNION.  457 

did  not  require  it,)  the  mention  of  any  one  individual  hy  name^  he  has 
secured  to  himself  the  very  convenient  resource  of  exculpating,  in  detail^ 
every  one  whom  it  may  be  hazardous  to  accuse  or  prudent  to  conceal, 
while  he  repeats  the  accusation  against  them  collectively.     *     *     * 

"  As  regards  Mr.  Tracy,  whom  only  of  the  whole  federal  party,  Mr. 
Adams  has  vouchsafed  to  name,  it  may  be  proper  to  state,  that  he  has 
now  been  in  his  grave  for  nearly  twenty-two  years.  The  '  other  member 
of  congress'  who  is  alleged  to  have  been  present  at  one  of  the  conversa- 
tions between  Mr.  Tracy  and  Mr.  Adams,  happens  also  to  be  clead^  and 
is  hitherto  nameless.  Whether  there  is  any  deep  philosophy  in  Mr. 
Adams'  apparent  preference  of  dead  and  anonymous  to  living  and  known 
authority,  which  might  confront  him,  I  can  not  presume  to  determine. 
But  as  '  dead  men,'  according  to  the  proverb,  '  tell  no  tales,'  so  on  the 
other  hand,  they  can  contradict  none. 

"  Mr.  Tracy,  it  is  well  known,  was  a  man  of  unusual  tact  and  address, 
in  all  situations,  and  a  most  acute  judge  of  the  characters  of  men.  He 
was  also  early  and  well  acquainted  with  Mr.  Adams,  and  was  not  igno- 
rant of  the  strength  and  obduracy  of  his  personal  resentments  and  anti- 
pathies. He  knew,  moreover,  what  many  perhaps  at  that  time  did  not — 
the  terms  on  which  Mr.  Adams  stood  with  Mj.  Hamilton.  The  brilliant 
and  exalted  character  of  that  great  man  had  long  been,  to  the  house  of 
Braintree,  an  object  of  deep  jealousy  and  resentment.  '  Under  him,' 
Mr.  Adams  had  felt  his  '  genius  rebuked,'  and  of  all  mankind  (not  ex- 
cepting even  Mr.  Ames  or  Col.  Pickering  himself,)  Mr.  Hamilton  was  to 
Mr.  Adams  probably  the  most  odious.  In  the  hereditary  and  cherished 
antipathies  of  Mr.  Adains,  Mr.  Hamilton,  it  is  believed,  had  no  rival. 
All  this  Mr.  Tracy  well  knew ;  and  that  a  man  like  him,  in  the  exercise 
of  hiB  understanding,  should  have  hoped  to  obtain  the  accession  of  such 
a  man  as  Mr.  Adams  to  the  '  project'  of  the  federal  leaders,  by  proposing 
a  measure  which  he  knew  would  be  most  revolting  to  Mr.  Adams''  whole 
soul ;  that  he  should  have  proposed  Mr.  Hamilton  as  the  leader  of  a 
great  public  enterprise  to  Mr.  John  Q.  Adams,  is,  modestly  speaking, 
something  strange.  It  is  a  little  singular,  also,  that  Mr.  Tracy  should 
have  made  Mr.  Adams  the  depository  of  so  important  a  state  secret, 
while  his  lips  were  absolutely  sealed  upon  the  subject  to  his  long 
tried,  best  known,  and  most  intimate  political  friends  and  associ- 
ates, whose  accession  to  the  project,  if  any  such  existed,  must  certainly 
have  been  contemplated  by  him.  The  survivors  of  the  Connecticut 
delegation  were  not  only  his  political,  but  his  personal  friends.  He 
and  they  were  uniformly  advocates  of  one  and  the  same  political  system 
With  most  of  them  from  his  youth,  and  with  all  of  them,  long  before 
the  year  1804,  he  was  in  habits  of  the  freest  and  most  confidential  com- 


458  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

munication  on  all  subjects  connected  with  public  affairs.  And  that  he 
should  so  guardedly  have  concealed  this  same  project  from  all  those 
gentlemen,  as  not  to  give  the  slightest  intimation  of  it  to  any  one  of 
them,  while  he  divulged  it  so  unreservedly  to  Mr.  John  Q.  Adams,  of 
Massachusetts,  must  be  a  little  puzzling  to  ordinary  understandings." 

Mr.  Plumcr  having  been  requested  by  James  A.  Hamilton,  to  give 
the  name  of  the  person  who  informed  him  of  his  father's  connection  with 
the  project  referred  to  in  the  letter  of  Mr.  Plumer,  replied  on  the  11th 
of  April,  1829,  saying  that  he  had  "made  no  charge  or  accusation 
against  Gen.  Hamilton;"  he  had  simply  stated  that  a  member  of  con- 
gress, at  the  session  of  1803-4,  informed  him  that  the  general  had  con- 
sented to  attend  the  meeting.  He  however  declined  giving  the  name  of 
his  informant :  in  relation  to  which  Mr.  Hamilton  observes  : 

"  As  this  affair  now  stands,  Mr.  Adams  may  still  consider  himself 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  this  witness,  which  he  would  undoubtedly  lose, 
if  a  free  examination  were  submitted  to ;  and  aware  how  important  it 
was  to  sustain  Mr.  Plumer's  credibility,  Mr.  Adams  has  endorsed  his 
statement,  and  tendered  him  a  certificate  of  respectability.  *  *  *  * 
The  credibility  of  the  associate  witness  must  be  sustained,  regardless  of 
the  reputation  and  honor  of  the  accused  ;  the  charge  of  treason  must  be 
fixed  somewhere,  and  the  stamp  of  infamy,  if  possible,  made  indelible. 
This  mighty  project  to  dismember  the  union,  seems  only  to  be  known 
to  John  Q.  Adams  and  William  Plumer ;  the  late  president  resorting 
to  the  dead  to  bear  him  testimony,  while  the  former  governor  of  New 
Hampshire  dare  not  trust  the  living  or  the  dead.  In  1804,  Mr.  Adams, 
by  his  own  admission,  knew  that  Gen.  Hamilton  advocated  the  union  ; 
in  1828,  in  his  reply  to  the  Boston  federalists,  he  asserts  that  he  was 
fixed  on  as  the  military  leader  to  carry  the  plan  of  disunion  into  execu- 
tion; and  on  the  6th  of  March,  1829,  he  most  graciously  affects  to  be- 
lieve that  Gen.  Hamilton  entertained  no  treasonable  or  disloyal  views." 

Mr.  Hamilton  accompanies  his  letter  to  the  Evening  Post  with  the 
declarations  of  nine  members  of  the  congress  of  1803-4,  intimate  friends 
and  associates  of  Mr.  Plumer,  disclaiming  all  knowledge  of  any  sugges- 
tion made  at  that  time,  and  avowing  their  disbelief  that  Gen.  Hamilton 
gave  any  countenance  to  a  separation  of  the  states,  or  consented  to  at- 
tend a  meeting  for  that  purpose. 


ANOTHER  ALLEGED  ATTEMPT  TO  DIVIDE  THE  UN. ON.       459 

CHAPTER  XXXY. 

ANOTHER    ALLEGED    ATTEMPT    TO    DIVIDE    THE    UNION. 

Almost  simultaneously  with  the  Giles  and  Adams  controversy,  and 
the  publication  of  the  letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr.  Adams'  own  state- 
ment in  relation  to  the  alleged  designs  of  disunion,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  a  northern  confederacy,  an  "  important  development"  was  an- 
nounced in  the  southern  papers  disclosing  the  incipient  steps  to  have 
been  taken  by  lea<ling  southerners  in  an  abortive  attempt  to  sever  their 
political  connection  with  the  government. 

In  October  succeeding  the  passage  of  the  tariff  of  1828,  which  pro- 
duced such  excitement  at  the  south,  a  writer,  under  the  signature  of 
*'  Union,"  in  a  South  Carolina  paper,  propounded  to  the  members  of 
congress  from  that  state,  the  following  questions,  which,  he  stated,  '^  if 
answered  in  the  negative,  might  have  a  tendency  to  .change  the  opinions 
of  at  least  a  portion  of  the  people  of  the  state  as  respected  the  nature  of 
the  opposition  to  the  tariff,  inculcated  by  a  few  of  the  Jacksonites  of 
South  Carolina." 

"  1st.  Was  there  not  a  meeting  of  the  delegation  of  this  state  held  in 
Washington  city,  in  the  house  of  one  of  our  senators,  a  few  nights  after 
the  passage  of  this  tariff  law,  the  object  of  which  was  (as  it  was  said)  to 
consult  upon  measures  best  to  be  adopted  and  pursued  as  it  regards  this 
law? 

"  2d.  At  this  meeting,  were  there  not  one  or  more  members  deputed 
to  wait  upon  and  consult  with  the  respective  delegations  from  the  southern 
states,  and  to  obtain,  if  possible,  their  cooperation  ?  Did  this  deputa- 
tion not  undertake  the  mission,  and  totally  fail  in  the  object  for  which 
it  was  appointed?  If  it  did,  was  it  not  then  proposed  by  one  or  more 
leading  members  of  the  assembly,  that  the  whole  of  the  members  as- 
sembled should  immediately  abandon  their  seats  in  congress,  return 
home,  and  thereby  end  all  further  political  connection  with  the  govern- 
ment ? 

"  3d.  Was  this  proposition  not  abandoned  by  the  meeting,  in  conse- 
quence of  one  or  more  of  the  prudent  members  objecting  to  take  upon 
themselves  the  burden  of  the  great  responsibility,  which  would  have 
been  the  consequence  of  such  a  step  ? 

"  Lastly.  Was  the  night  consultation  not  ended  by  a  majority  of  the 
members  finally  determining,  that,  although  they  would  await  the  ad- 
journment of  congress,  yet  that,  upon  their  arrival  home,  they  would 


460  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

each  visit  tlieir  constituents  generally,  and  among  them  make  every 
effort  to  inculcate  such  doctrines  and  principles  as  would  induce  the 
people  of  the  states  to  agree  to  and  advocate  a  separation  of  the  states  ?" 

To  the  allegations  implied  in  these  interrogatories,  Mr.  Hayne,  the 
senator  in  whose  house  the  meeting  was  said  to  have  been  held,  made  a 
positive  denial.  He  said  in  his  reply  :  "  It  is  true,  that,  during  the  last 
session  of  congress,  consultations  were  held  among  the  members  of  the 
South  Carolina  delegation  on  the  subject  of  the  tariff.  Such  consulta- 
tions have,  as  I  believe,  been  usual  in  all  cases  affecting,  in  a  peculiar 
degree,  the  interests  of  particular  states ;  and  the  members  of  this  state 
would,  in  my  opinion,  have  been  wanting  in  their  duty  if  they  had  not 
most  earnestly  and  anxiously  taken  into  consideration,  on  the  passage 
of  the  tariff  law,  whether  any  thing  remained  to  be  done  by  them  in 
their  representative  capacity  in  relation  to  that  matter.  Such,  I  aver, 
was  the  sole  object  of  a  meeting  held  at  my  house  in  "Washington,  im- 
mediately after  the  passage  of  that  law — a  meeting  rendered  indispen- 
sably necessary,  by  a  question  which  had  been  discussed  among  some  of 
the  southern  members,  (but  which  I  think  did  not  originate  with  any 
member  of  our  delegation,)  viz :  whether  a  protest  against  the  law,  to 
be  signed  by  all  the  members  from  the  anti-tariff  states,  to  be  entered 
on  the  journals  of  the  two  houses  of  congress,  and  transmitted  to  the 
executives  of  the  several  states,  might  not  be  an  expedient  measure. 
The  subject  of  such  a  protest  was  fully  discussed  without  being  brought 
to  any  conclusion,  further  than  that  a  free  interchange  of  opinions  in 
relation  to  it  should  take  place  among  the  representatives  of  the  anti- 
tariff  states ;  the  final  result  of  which  was  the  abandonment  of  the 
scheme  by  common  consent,  as  one  not  only  of  doubtful  policy,  but  con- 
cerning which  there  existed  too  great  a  difference  of  opinion  to  justify 
its  adoption." 

On  reading  this  denial  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Hayne,  Thomas  R.  Mit- 
chell, a  representative  from  the  same  state,  who  had  made  to  some  of 
his  confidential  constituents,  statements  in  respect  to  the  meeting  refer- 
red to,  which  were  impugned  by  the  letter  of  Mr.  Hayne,  replied  to  the 
same,  substantially  confirming  the  implied  allegations  of  the  writer  above 
mentioned.     Addressing  Mr.  Hayne  directly  he  says  : 

"  And  will  you  deny,  sir,  that,  after  all  the  southern  delegations  ex- 
cept Georgia  had  positively  refused  to  unite  with  us  in  such  a  protest 
as  was  thought  effectual  by  you  and  others,  that  a  proposition  was  made 
by  one  of  your  members,  that  we  should  formally  secede  from  congress, 
return  home,  and  say  to  our  constituents,  that  our  services  were  no 
longer  of  any  use  ?  That  when  this  proposition  was  made,  it  was  imme- 
diately opposed  by   Col.  Drayton,  who  at  once  declared  that  he  would 


ANOTHER  ALLEGED  ATTEMPT  TO  DIVIDE  THE  UNION.       461 

not  concur,  as  the  act  thus  performed  would  be  unconstitutional,  and 
would  not  be  sanctioned  by  his  constituents  ?  I  can  not,  sir,  be  mis- 
taken in  this  statement.  The  proposition  excited  feelings  too  strong  to 
be  forgotten.  I  thought  if  it  were  adopted,  that  I  should  be  placed  in 
the  most  trying  of  all  situations.  To  remain  alone  at  Washington,  in 
opposition  to  the  views  of  the  whole  delegation,  would  be  assuming  a 
fearful  responsibility ;  to  shrink  from  that  responsibilit}/,  and  yield  to 
their  views  in  opposition  to  my  own,  would  be  contemptible  weakness. 
Besides,  what  was  to  result  from  it  ?  What  was  to  be  the  fate  of  the 
people  whom  we  represented  ?  Imagination  shuddered  at  the  prospect. 
These  were  my  feelings — these  were  the  ideas  which  the  proposition 
called  forth.  And  I  have  never  in  my  life  been  more  relieved  than  when 
it  was  immediately  put  down  by  Col.  Drayton. 

"  Again,  sir,  will  you  deny  that  a  proposition  was  made,  that  we 
should,  on  our  return  home,  communicate  by  letter,  or  otherwise,  with 
the  principal  men  of  our  respective  districts,  on  the  subject  of  the  tariff; 
explain  to  them  the  fatal  effects  on  their  trade  and  agriculture ;  and  its 
aggression  on  the  sovereignty  of  the  state  ?  Further,  that  it  was  pro- 
posed, that  we  should,  during  the  summer,  communicate  to  each  other, 
by  letter,  the  state  of  feeling  which  we  discovered  in  our  respective  dis- 
tricts ?  And  finally,  that  the  delegation  should  meet  at  Columbia  in 
October  or  November,  for  the  purpose  of  devising  and  maturing  some 
plan  of  action  for  the  state  governments  ?  Do  you  not  remember  that 
one  gentleman  (Mr.  M'Duffie,)  did  say,  that,  in  his  opinion,  there  was 
no  other  remedy  for  the  evil  than  a  separation  of  the  state  from  the 
union  ;  that  temporizing  measures  would  prove  unavailing ;  and  that  he, 
himself,  was  prepared  to  go  all  lengths  ?  And  when  it  was  remarked 
that  his  constituents  might  not  approve  such  a  measure,  did  he  not  reply 
with  an  exclamation,  that  he  would  not  then  represent  them  ?  that  he 
considered  his  services  in  congress  as  an  obligation  conferred  on  them ; 
and  that,  whenever  they  failed  to  support  his  great  views  on  the  affairs 
of  the  union,  he  would  abandon  them  ?  To  this,  did  you  not  reply,  that 
others  were  as  ready  to  make  sacrifices  as  he  could  be  ? 

"Further,  when  it  was  observed,  that  Mr.  M'Duffie's  plan  was  ill-ad- 
vised, because  the  United  States'  government  would  force  the  state  to 
submission,  (she,  single-handed,  not  having  the  power  to  resist,)  did  you 
not  ask,  where  were  the  means  of  the  general  government  to  coerce  the 
state  ?  That  the  standing  army  was  no  more  than  a  handful  of  men — 
nothing  could  be  feared  from  it  ?  That,  with  regard  to  the  militia,  no 
southern  militia,  if  called  out  by  the  president,  would  take  arms  against 
our  people ;  and  that  the  northern  militia  would  not  be  permitted  by 
Virginia  and  North  Carolina  to  pass  through  their  territories  for  the 


462  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

purpose  of  subjecting  South  Carolina  ?  Finally,  after  all  attempts  to 
obtain  a  cooperation  of  the  southern  delegations  had  failed — after  one 
of  our  most  influential  members  (Mr.  Senator  Smith)  had  peremptorily 
refused  to  attend,  and  unanimity  was  not  found  to  exist  even  among 
those  who  were  present,  was  it  not  then  that  you  proposed  to  abandon 
all  the  foregoing  plans,  lest  any  increase  of  excitement  in  South  Caro- 
lina might  prove  injurious  to  the  election  of  Gen.  Jackson? 

"On  the  .adjournment  of  the  meeting,  I  called  on  senator  Smith, 
related  what  had  transpired,  and  remarked,  that  the  delegation  had  been 
saved  by  the  wisdom  and  firmness  of  Col.  Drayton.  With  regard  to 
the  views  of  yourself  and  others,  I  could  say  nothing.  Having  never 
respected  either  the  principles  or  course  of  the  Calhoun  party,  I  was 
not  in  your  confidence,  and  was  therefore  left  to  mere  conjecture  as  to 
what  your  motives  were,  and  what  your  ulterior  projects  might  be.  In 
this  public  development  I  have  not  volunteered ;  you  have  forced  me 
to  it." 

To  this  Col.  Hayne  rejoined  in  an  attempt  to  disprove  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  introduced  as  testimony  letters  of  several  of  the 
members  of  that  state.  It  was,  however,  admitt'^d  and  proved,  that 
the  question  was  discussed  of  presenting  to  the  house  a  protest  from  the 
delegations  of  the  anti-tariff  states:  That  it  was  proposed,  that,  when 
the  delegates  went  home,  they  should  by  letter  communicate  to  each 
other  the  feelings  and  sentiments  of  the  people  within  their  districts 
upon  the  subject  of  the  tarifi";  and  that  they  should  endeavor  to  pre- 
vent the  expression  of  public  opinion  on  this  subject  until  after  the 
election  :  That  the  delegation  should  assemble  at  Columbia,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  session  of  the  legislature,  to  give  to  the  members  of 
that  body  any  information  respecting  the  tarifi"  that  might  be  desired : 
That  Maj.  Hamilton  declared  his  purpose  to  go  home,  surrender  his 
commission,  and  not  return  to  congress,  unless  directed  by  his  constitu- 
ents ;  from  which  purpose  he  was  dissuaded  by  Col.  Drayton :  That  the 
effects  of  a  dissolution  of  the  union  were  discussed :  That  Maj.  Hamil- 
ton said,  if  South  Carolina  should  be  driven  from  the  union  by  the 
restrictive  policy,  the  government  could  not  enforce  it ;  as  the  regular 
army  was  too  small  to  create  apprehensions,  and  Virginia  and  North 
Carolina  .would  never  permit  northern  militia  to  pass  through  their 
territories  to  reduce  South  Carolina  to  subjection. 

Although  the  testimony  adduced  by  Col.  Hayne,  if  correct,  acquits 
the  accused  of  the  worst  designs  imputed  to  them ;  yet,  from  the  facts 
admitted,  it  was  easy  and  natural  for  Mr.  Mitchell  to  infer  all  he  charged 
upon  them ;  and  the  more  so  from  their  having  been,  as  Maj.  Hamilton 
confessed,  "  under  a  very  high  degree  of  excitement  at  this  new  act  of 


RISE    AND    TROGRESS    OF    THE    ANTI-MASONIC    PARIY.  463 

injustice."  Only  a  few  years  after,  the  right  of  secession  and  of  nulli- 
fication was  the  current  and  almost  universal  doctrine  in  South  Carolina, 
in  which  these  gentlemen,  it  is  presumed,  all  concurred,  and  of  which 
they  determined  to  give  a  practical  exemplification  by  a  forcible  resist- 
ance to  the  laws  of  the  union. 


CHAPTER  XXXYI. 

RISE    AND    PROGRESS    OF    THE    ANTI-MASONIC    PARTY. 

Sn  September,  1826,  an  event  occurred  which  gave  rise  to  a  new 
political  party.  William  Morgan,  of  Batavia,  Genesee  county.  New 
York,  having  written  for  publication  a  work  alleged  to  contain  a  dis- 
closure of  the  secrets  of  free-masonry,  and  which  was  about  to  be 
issued  from  the  press  of  David  C.  Miller,  was  apprehended  under  color 
of  a  criminal  process,  and  conveyed  to  Canandaigua,  in  the  county  of 
Ontario,  where,  upon  examination  before  a  magistrate,  he  was  discharged. 
He  was  subsequently  arrested,  on  the  same  day,  upon  a  demand  against 
him;  a  judgment  was  obtained;  and  he  was  confined  in  the  jail  of  the 
county.  On  the  evening  of  the  12th  of  September,  persons  who  had 
been  concerned  in  his  seizure  and  confinement,  discharged  the  debt,  and 
caused  his  liberation.  On  leaving  the  jail,  he  was  forcibly  taken,  carried 
in  a  close  carriage  to  the  Niagara  frontier,  where  he  was  last  seen. 

Several  persons  concerned  in  the  outrage  upon  Morgan  were  arrested, 
and  indicted,  pleaded  guilty  to  the  indictments,  and  were  imprisoned  ii\ 
the  county  jail  at  Canandaigua.  A  great  excitement  soon  prevailed 
throughout  the  western  part  of  the  state. 

At  the  next  session  of  the  legislature,  petitions  relating  to  the  abduc- 
tion of  Morgan  were  presented,  and  referred  to  a  select  committee  of 
the  assembly;  and  a  reward  of  $1,000  was  ofi"ered  by  Gov.  Clinton  for 
the  discovery  of  Morgan,  if  alive;  and  if  murdered,  $2,000  for  the  dis- 
covery of  the  offender  or  ofi'enders  ;  and  a  free  pardon  to  any  accomplice 
or  cooperator  who  should  make  the  discovery. 

The  committee  of  the  legislature  stated  in  their  report,  that  the 
petitions  set  forth,  that,  after  an  examination  before  the  magistrate  at 
Canandaigua,  Morgan  was  discharged.  He  was  again  immediately 
arrested  upon  a  demand  against  him,  and  a  judgment  obtained,  on  which 
he  was  imprisoned  in  the  county  jail  at  that  place.  His  friends  dis- 
charged the  debt  on  which  he  had  been  committed,  and  he  was  liberated. 


464  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

On  leaving  the  jail  he  was  seized,  forced  into  a  carriage,  and  conveyed 
to  the  Niagara  frontier,  where,  as  some  of  the  petitioners  alleged,  he  was 
murdered  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  September:  and  all  expressed  the 
belief,  that  the  conspiracy  extended  through  several  of  the  western 
counties,  and  was  the  result  of  a  previously  concerted  plan. 

As  the  courts  of  a  single  county  were  deemed  inadequate  to  the 
emergency,  the  interposition  of  the  legislature  was  asked  to  procure  a 
full  development  of  the  plot.  The  committee  reported  a  resolution  re- 
questing the  governor  to  offer  a  reward  of  $5,000  for  the  discovery  of  ^ 
Morgan,  if  living,  and  a  like  sum  for  the  murderer  or  murderers,  if 
dead ;  and  another  for  the  appointment  of  a  joint  committee  of  the  two 
houses,  to  visit  the  counties  from  which  and  through  which  Morgan  had 
been  taken,  to  inquire  into  the  facts  and  circumstances  connected  with 
the  outrage,  and  to  report  their  proceedings  to  the  next  legislature. 

In  the  autumn  of  1827,  the  bodj^of  a  man  was  found  on  the  shore  of 
lake  Ontario,  which,  from  the  testimony  given  on  the  coroner's  inquest, 
the  jury  unanimously  agreed,  was  the  body  of  William  Morgan.  Upon 
a  second  examination,  however,  held  some  time  afterward,  a  jury  decided 
the  body  to  be  that  of  Timothy  Monro,  who  had  been  upset  in  a  skiff 
and  lost  in  the  mouth  of  Niagara  river  in  September.  His  clothing,  un- 
seen by  his  widow  and  intimate  friends  since  his  death,  were  so  minutely 
described,  as  to  leave  no  doubt  on  the  minds  of  the  jurors.  It  was  also 
testified  by  a  physician,  that  the  body,  appearing  to  be  only  in  the  first 
stages  of  decomposition,  could  not  be  that  of  a  person  more  than  a  year 
after  drowning. 

Bills  of  indictment  were  found  against  several  persons  who  had  par- 
ticipated in  the  abduction ;  two  of  whom,  in  1829,  were  convicted  and 
sentenced  to  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail,  one  for  two  years  and  four 
months,  the  other  for  one  year  and  three  months.  The  former  was  the 
sheriff  of  Niagara  county,  who  as  a  witness  on  the  trial  of  the  latter, 
testified,  that  he  had  been  apprised  several  days  previously  of  the  coming 
of  Morgan,  and  had  been  requested  to  prepare  a  cell  for  him  in  the 
Niagara  county  jail  at  Lockport.  It  was  proved  that  Morgan  was  taken 
through  Rochester,  and  along  the  ridge  road  to  Lewiston,  being  conveyed, 
blind-folded  in  a  covered  carriage,  which  was  kept  closed.  From  Lewis- 
ton  he  was  taken  in  another  carriage  to  the  ferry  near  fort  Niagara, 
Witness  and  four  others  crossed  with  him  into  Canada,  in  the  night ; 
their  object  being  to  get  Morgan  away  from  Miller  into  the  interior  of 
Canada,  and  place  him  on  a  farm.  The  expected  preparation  not  having 
been  made  for  his  reception,  he  was  brought  back  to  this  side  of  the 
river,  to  wait  a  few  days,  and  was  put  into  the  magazine  of  the  fort ; 
since  which  the  witness  had  not  seen  him. 


RISE    AND    PROGRESS    OF    THE    ANTI-MASONIC    PARTY.  465 

The  publication  of  Morgan's  book  was  followed  by  that  of  others, 
claiming  to  be  true  revelations  of  the  secrets  of  masonry ;  and  many 
free  masons  seceded  from  the  institution,  and  confirmed  the  published 
statements  of  its  character  and  ceremonies,  as  well  as  the  oaths  and  ob- 
ligations of  its  members,  some  of  which  were  inconsistent  with  their 
civil  duties.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that,  with  the  suspicion  pre- 
viously existing  in  the  minds  of  a  large  portion  of  the  uninitiated 
against  the  order,  this  outrage  upon  the  person  of  Morgan,  which  was 
believed  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  institution,  should  soon 
raise  against  it  a  powerful  opposition.  Those  who  believed  the  members 
held  their  civil  obligations  subordinate  to  their  obligations  to  each  other, 
considered  free  masons  unfit  to  hold  civil  offices. 

Under  the  influence  of  this  opinion,  strengthened  as  it  had  been  by  the 
difficulty,  in  a  few  cases,  of  bringing  criminals  to  justice  where  courts, 
sheriffs  and  witnesses  were  masons,  the  anti-masons  soon  began  to  unite 
to  prevent  the  election  of  masons  to  town  and  county  offices.  Probably 
their  object,  as  yet,  contemplated  merely  the  procuring  of  the  nomina- 
tion of  persons  not  masons,  by  the  existing  political  parties.  A  general 
convention  was  held  at  Le  Roy,  in  March,  1828,  in  which  twelve  coun- 
ties were  represented.  Its  object  appears  to  have  been  to  direct  the 
public  attention  to  what  was  deemed  a  dangerous  institution,  and  to 
excite  against  it  a  general  opposition.  It  recommended  a  state  conven- 
tion to  be  held  at  IJtica  in  August.  The  nomination  of  separate,  inde- 
pendent candidates  for  state  officers,  was  not,  it  is  said,  contemplated  in 
calling  the  state  convention.  Eut  the  Adams  party,  then  calling  them- 
selves "  national  republicans,"  in  the  hope  of  securing  the  support  of  the 
anti-masons,  anticipated  the  convention  of  the  latter,  by  calling  their 
convention  at  an  earlier  day,  and  nominating  men  who  were  not  masons. 
Smith  Thompson,  then  a  justice  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  United 
States,  was  nominated  for  governor,  and  Francis  Granger,  a  favorite  of 
the  anti-masons,  for  lieutenant  governor. 

Perceiving  in  this  act  of  the  national  republicans  no  manifestation 
against  masonry,  the  anti-masons  did  not  respond  to  the  nominations ; 
but  at  their  convention  declared  it  expedient  "  wholly  to  disregard  the 
two  great  political  parties,  and  to  nominate  anti-masonic  candidates  for 
governor  and  lieutenant  governor."  Mr.  Grrangcr  was  accordingly  nomi- 
nated for  governor,  and  John  Crary  for  lieutenant  governor,  both  of 
whom  had  taken  an  active  part  in  procuring  the  aid  of  the  legislature  in 
bringing  to  justice  the  Morgan  conspirators  ;  the  former  being  a  member 
of  the  assembly,  and  the  latter  a  senator. 

Mr.  Granger,  however,  declined  the  nomination,  and  accepted  that  of 
lieutenant  governor  tendered  him  by  the  national  republicans,  to  the 

30 


466  THE    AMERICAN    STATESJIAN. 

great  displeasure  of  the  anti-uiasons ;  wto  supplied  the  place  of  his  name 
with  that  of  Solomon  Southwick,  who,  though  once  a  mason,  had  lately 
cooperated  with  the  anti-masons  in  their  attempts  to  overthrow  the  insti- 
tution. In  the  selection  of  Mr.  Southwick,  the  great  body  of  the  anti- 
masons  did  not  concur,  he  having  been  nominated  by  a  small  convention 
at  Le  Roy.  With  few  exceptions,  however,  they  gave  him  their  support 
at  the  e-lection. 

The  election  resulted  in  the  choice  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  the  Jackson 
candidate  for  governor,  and  Enos  T.  Throop  for  lieutenant  governor. 
Mr.  Van  Buren  received  136,794  votes;  Judge  Thompson,  106,444; 
and  Mr.  Southwick,  33,345. 

From  this  time,  a  regular  organization  as  a  state  anti-masonic  party 
may  be  considered  as  having  existence,  embracing  in  its  composition 
original  Clintonians,  (Mr.  Clinton  having  united  with  the  friends  of 
Gen.  Jackson,)  and  bucktails,  as  the  party  opposed  to  Mr.  Clinton  was 
.3alled.  As  regarded  national  politics  they  had  not  yet  made  any  de- 
claration ;  a  majoi>ity,  however,  were  national  republicans  and  friendly  to 
Mr.  Adams.  Gen.  Jackson  being  a  mason,  it  was  eas}'  to  foresee  that 
they  would  eventually  unite  with  the  friends  of  the  former,  if  with 
either  of  the  two  national  parties. 

The  anti-masons  prosecuted  their  object  with  such  zeal  and  energy, 
as  soon  to  place  them  in  advance  of  the  national  republicans.  They  held 
a  state  convention  in  February,  1829  ;  and  at  the  election  in  November, 
they  obtained  majorities  in  the  fourteen  western  counties,  and  in  the 
county  of  Washington ;  and  the  senator  of  the  8th  senate  district  was 
elected  by  an  unprecedented  majority.  In  February,  1830,  another  state 
convention  was  held  in  Albany^  at  which  they  decided  to  call  a  national 
convention,  and  a  state  conventian  to  nominate  candidates  for  governor 
and  lieutenant-governor.  At  the  convention,  held  at  Utica  in  August, 
they  declared  their  political  principles,  which  were  substantially  the 
same  as  those  of  the  national  republicans.  Mr.  Granger,  having  re- 
gained their  confidence  and  esteem,  was  nominated  for  governor,  and 
Samuel  Stevens  for  lieutenant  governor.  No  nomination  was  made  by 
the  national  republican  party ;  and  had  this  party,  with  entire  unanimity, 
voted  for  Granger  and  Stevens,  they  would  probably  have  been  elected. 
A  number  sufficient  to  defeat  the  anti-masonic  candidates,  having  a 
stronger  attachment  to  masonry  than  to  their  political  principles,  joined 
the  Jackson  party,  and  gave  the  election  to  Mr.  Throop,  by  a  majority 
of  8,481  votes. 

The  cause  of  anti-masonry  soon  extended  to  other  states.  It  acquired 
its  greatest  strength  in  New  York,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  Ohio.     In  some  districts  of  these  states,  the  anti-masonic 


BATTLE    OF    NEW    ORLEANS    AND    THE    SIX    MILITIA    MEN.  467 

party  had  obtained  the  ascendency,  and  in  a  considerable  number  of 
them,  it  became  the  most  formidable  rival  of  the  dominant  party.  The 
sequel  of  its  history  will  be  given  in  a  succeeding  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XXXVIL 


BATTLE    OF    NEW    ORLEANS,  AND  THE    SIX    MILITIA  MEN. FUGITIVE  SLAVES 

AND    ABOLITION. PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION. ANTI-TARIFF    PROTESTS. 

INTERNAL    IMPROVEMENT    FUND. PUBLIC    LANDS    IN    INDIANA. 

On  the  8th  of  January,  1328,  Mr.  Hamilton,  of  South  Carolina, 
moved  instructions  to  the  committee  on  the  library  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  having  an  historical  picture  of  the  battle  of  New  Orleans 
painted,  and  placed  in  one  of  the  panels  of  the  rotunda,  and  of  engaging 
Washington  Allston  to  design  and  finish  the  work.  During  the  discus- 
sion of  the  resolution,  which  continued  two  days,  sundry  amendments 
were  offered,  principally  by  its  opponents,  with  a  view  to  embarrass  its 
passage.  The  amendments  proposed  to  add  pictures  of  certain  battles 
of  the  revolution,  and  naval  battles  during  the  late  war  with  Great  Bri- 
tain. The  question  was  taken  at  the  close  of  the  second  day's  debate, 
and  decided  in  the  negative  :  ayes,  98;  noes,  103. 

The  resolution  having  been  intended,  as  was  presumed,  for  party  effect, 
Mr.  Sloane,  of  Ohio,  from  the  other  party,  on  the  1 1th  of  January,  1828, 
moved  a  resolution  calling  on  the  secretary  of  war  to  furnish  the  house 
with  a  copy  of  the  proceedings  of  a  court  martial  at  Mobile,  in  Decem- 
ber, 1814,  by  which  six  of  the  Tennessee  militia  men  had  been  tried, 
convicted  of  insubordination  and  mutiny,  and  condemned  to  be  shot; 
which  sentence  was  carried  into  effect  by  order  of  Gen.  Jackson.  The 
resolution,  after  having  been  so  amended  as  to  embrace  a  great  variety  of 
other  papers,  letters,  &c.,  relating  to  the  subject,  was  adopted  on  the 
16th  of  January ;  and  on  the  11  th  of  February,  the  committee  on  mili- 
tary affairs,  (Mr.  Hamilton,  chairman,)  made  a  report  on  the  subject, 
approving  the  proceedings  of  the  court,  and  justifying  the  execution  of 
the  militia  men.  The  report  and  accompanying  documents  were  ordered 
to  be  printed,  108  to  69. 

This  affair  of  the  militia  men  proved  detrimental  rather  than  availing 
to  the  administration  party.  Handbills  giving  unfavorable  representations 
of  the  trial  and  execution  of  these  men,  "  illustrated"  with  wood  engrav- 
ings of  six  coffins,  were  extensively  circulated.     But  the   investigation 


468  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

having  resulted  in  the  exculpation  of  Gen.  Jackson,  the  "  coffin  hand- 
bills," as  they  were  called,  became  rather  an  effective  weapon  in  the  hands 
of  his  friends  against  the  inventors. 

An  attempt  was  made  during  Mr.  Adams'  administration  to  effect  an 
arrangement  with  Great  Britain  for  the  surrender  of  fugitive  slaves 
taking  refuge  in  the  Canadian  provinces.  By  a  resolution  of  the  house 
of  representatives,  May  10,  1828,  the  president  was  requested  to  open  a 
negotiation  with  the  British  government  for  this  purpose.  On  the  15th 
of  December,  in  compliance  with  a  resolution  of  the  8th,  the  president 
transmitted  to  the  house  the  correspondence  between  the  secretary  of 
state  and  Mr.  Gallatin,  our  minister  at  London,  and  Mr.  Barbour,  his 
successor.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  instructions  of  Mr. 
Clay  to  Mr.  Gallatin  : 

"  If  it  be  urged  that  Great  Britain  would  make,  in  agreeing  to  the 
proposed  stipulation,  a  concession  without  an  equivalent,  there  being  no 
corresponding  class  of  persons  in  her  North  American  continental  domin- 
ions, you  will  reply  : 

"1st.  That  there  is  a  similar  class  in  the  British  West  Indies,  and, 
although  the  instances  are  not  numerous,  some  have  occurred  of  their 
escape,  or  being  brought,  contrary  to  law,  into  the  United  States. 

"  2dly.  That  Great  Britain  would  probably  obtain  an  advantage  over 
us  in  the  reciprocal  restoration  of  military  and  maritime  deserters,  which 
would  compensate  any  that  wc  might  secure  over  her  in  the  practical 
operation  of  an  article  for  the  mutual  delivery  of  fugitives  from  labor. 

"  3dly.  At  all  events,  the  disposition  to  cultivate  good  neighborhood, 
which  such  an  article  would  imply,  could  not  fail  to  find  a  compensation 
in  that,  or  in  some  other  way,  in  the  already  immense  and  still  increasing 
intercourse  between  the  two  countries.  The  states  of  Virginia  and  Ken- 
tucky are  particularly  anxious  on  this  subject.  The  general  assembly  of 
the  latter  has  repeatedly  invoked  the  interposition  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States  with  Great  Britain  You  will,  therefore,  press  the 
matter  whilst  there  exists  any  prospect  of  your  obtaining  a  satisfactory 
arrangement  of  it.  Perhaps  the  British  government,  whilst  they  refuse 
to  come  under  any  obligation  by  treaty,  might  be  willing  to  give  direc- 
tions to  the  colonial  authorities  to  afford  facilities  for  the  recovery  of 
fugitives  from  labor ;  or,  if  they  should  not  be  disposed  to  disturb  such 
as  have  heretofore  taken  refuge  in  Upper  Canada,  they  might  be  willing 
to  interdict  the  entry  of  any  others  in  future." 

These  considerations  were  not  deemed  sufficiently  weighty  to  induce 
the  English  government  to  make  the  desired  concession. 

A  petition  from  the  citizens  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  was  presented 
to   congress   at  the  session  of  1827-28,  praying   for   the  prospective 


FUGITIVE    SLAVES    AND    ABOLITION.  469 

abolition  of  slavery  in  the  district,  and  for  the  repeal  of  those  lawp  which 
authorize  the  selling  of  supposed  runaways  for  their  prison  fees  or  main- 
tenance. The  petitioners  declare  slavery  among  them,  to  be  "  an  evil 
of  serious  magnitude,  which  greatly  impairs  the  prosperity  and  happi- 
ness of  the  district,  and  to  cast  the  reproach  of  inconsistency  upon  the 
free  institutions  established  among  us."  They  represent  the  domestic 
slave  trade  at  the  seat  of  the  national  government  as  "  scarcely  less  dis- 
graceful in  its  character,  and  even  more  demoralizing  in  its  influence," 
than  the  foreign  slave  trade,  which  is  declared  piracy,  and  punishable 
with  death.  "  Husbands  and  wives  are  separated ;  children  are  taken 
from  their  parents  without  regard  to  the  ties  of  nature,  and  the  most 
endearing  bonds  of  afi'ection  are  broken  for  ever." 

It  was  mentioned  also  as  a  special  grievance,  that  "  some  who  were 
entitled  to  freedom,  had  been  sold  into  unconditional  slavery."  And 
they  gave  the  case  of  a  colored  man  who  had  been  taken  up  as  a  runaway 
slave,  imprisoned,  and  advertised ;  and  no  one  appearing  to  claim  him, 
he  was  sold  for  life  at  public  auction  for  the  payment  of  his  jail  fees,  and 
taken  to  the  south.  A  stronger  anti-slavery  document  has  not  in  later 
years  been  presented  to  congress ;  nor  did  it  receive  any  more  efficient 
action  than  similar  petitions  have  since  received. 

The  memorable  presidential  contest  between  Adams  and  Jackson 
terminated  in  November,  1828,  in  the  triumphant  election  of  the  latter. 
It  was  one  of  no  ordinary  character.  It  was  unusually  animated  and 
acrimonious.  Mr.  Adams'  election  had  been  effected  by  a  "  coalition  " 
which  many  sincerely  believed  to  have  been  dishonorable ;  and  this  belief 
undoubtedly  incited  them  to  more  than  ordinary  activity  in  their  early 
formed  purpose  to  rebuke  the  coalitionists.  The  opposition  to  the 
reelection  of  Mr.  Adams  commenced  early.  The  overthrow  of  his 
administration  was  predetermined  before  his  inauguration.  The  opposi- 
tion so  early  begun,  was  maintained  throughout  without  abatement.  The 
personal  character  of  the  candidates  was  assailed  in  a  manner  unjustifi- 
able and  perhaps  unprecedented.  The  private  life  of  Mr.  Adams  was 
correct  beyond  that  of  most  public  men.  Many  of  his  official  acts,  how- 
ever, were  subjected  to  the  most  rigid  scrutiny,  with  the  view  of 
deducing  from  them  evidence  of  dishonesty  and  corruption.  His  oppo- 
nent was,  on  this  point,  more  vulnerable.  His  earlier  life  had  been 
marked  with  faults,  and  even  vices.  These  though  long  since  condemned 
by  himself,  and  abandoned,  were  ungenerously  held  up  to  public  view. 
Moral  character,  however,  has  too  often  far  less  weight  with  the  mass  of 
the  electors  than  supposed  obligations  to  party. 

But  whatever  disadvantage  Gen.  Jackson  may  have  suffered  in  this 
respect,  was  far  more  than  counterbalanced  by  actual  advantages  which 


470  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

he  possessed  over  his  opponent.  Besides  the  benefit  which  inured  to  him 
from  the  suspicions  of  unfairness  in  the  election  of  Mr.  Adams,  the  fact 
of  his  having  received  a  plurality  of  the  electoral  votes  at  the  preceding 
election,  was  itself  considered  by  many  as  establishing  a  claim  to  their 
support.  The  electoral  votes  of  Jackson  and  Crawford  were  140;  those 
of  Adams  and  Clay,  121.  It  was  apparent,  therefore,  that  by  an  entire 
union  of  the  strength  of  the  two  former,  Gen.  Jackson  would  be  elected. 
Though  neither  was  popular  at  the  south,  Mr.  Adams  had  incurred  in  an 
eminent  degree,  the  resentment  of  Georgia,  in  a  controversy  with  that  state 
respecting  the  Indian  difficulties  :  and  several  of  the  neighboring  states 
sympathized  with  Georgia  in  that  affair.  Mr.  Adams,  too,  was  known 
to  be  in  favor  of  a  more  liberal  construction  of  the  constitution  than 
southern  statesmen  generally ;  and  although  Gen.  Jackson  had  taken 
high  ground  in  favor  of  protection  and  internal  improvement,  they  had 
no  reason  to  apprehend  under  his  administration  an  aggravation  of  the 
evils  of  that  policy ;  but  they  rather  hoped  for  some  mitigation  of  them. 
And  yet  another  advantage  enjoyed  by  Gen.  Jackson  in  this  contest, 
was  the  support  which  he  received  from  those  whose  claims  to  executive 
favor  had  not  been  sufficiently  appreciated  by  Mr.  Adams.  Although 
Gen.  Jackson,  as  is  generally  believed,  held  out  no  inducements  to  the 
disappointed  expectants  of  office  under  Mr.  Adams,  it  is  both  natural 
and  usual  for  this  class  of  politicians  to  change  their  party  relations 
when  it  can  be  done  without  hazard,  or  with  a  moderate  expectation  of 
personal  advantage. 

Of  the  whole  number  of  electoral  votes  for  president.  Gen.  Jackson 
received  178;  and  Mr.  Adams,  83.  Mr.  Calhoun  was  reelected  vice- 
president  by  171  votes,  (the  7  Georgia  electors  having  voted  for  Wil- 
liam Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  and  Richard  Rush  received  83. 

The  2d  session  of  the  20th  congress  commenced  on  the  1st  of  Decem- 
ber, 1828,  and  closed  with  the  constitutional  term  of  Mr.  Adams' 
administration  on  the  3d  of  March,  1829. 

At  this  session^  protests  against  the  tariff  of  the  preceding  session 
from  the  legislatures  of  the  states  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  were 
presented  to  the  senate.  The  Georgia  protest  pronounced  that  act,  en- 
titled, "An  act  in  alteration  of  the  several  acts  imposing  duties  on 
imports,"  "  deceptive  in  its  title,  fraudulent  in  its  pretexts,  oppressive 
in  its  exactions,  partial  and  unjust  in  its  operations,  unconstitutional  in  its 
well  known  objects,  ruinous  to  commerce  and  agriculture — to  secure  a 
hateful  monopoly  to  a  combination  of  importunate  manufacturers;"  and, 
in  language  similar  to  that  employed  in  her  correspondence  with  the  gene- 
ral government  on  a  former  occasion,  and  hinting  toward  nullificatior*, 
concludes  thus : 


ANTI-TARIFF    PROTESTS.  471 

"  Demanding  the  repeal  of  an  act  which  has  already  disturbed  the 
union,  and  endangered  the  public  tranquillity,  weakened  the  confidence 
of  whole  states  in  the  federal  government,  and  diminished  the  affection 
of  large  masses  of  the  people  to  the  union  itself,  and  (demanding)  the 
tbandonment  of  the  degrading  system  which  considers  the  people  as  in- 
\>apable  of  wisely  directing  their  own  enterprise  ;  which  sets  up  the  ser- 
vants of  the  people  in  congress  as  the  exclusive  judges  of  what  pursuits 
are  most  advantageous  and  suitable  for  those  by  whom  they  were  elected; 
the  state  of  Georgia  expects  that,  in  perpetual  testimony  thereof,  the  de- 
liberate and  solemn  expression  of  her  opinion  will  be  carefully  preserved 
among  the  archives  of  the  senate ;  and  in  justification  of  her  character 
to  the  present  generation  and  to  posterity,  if,  unfortunately,''  congress, 
disregarding  the  protest,  and  continuing  to  pervert  powers  granted  for 
clearly  defined  and  well  understood  purposes,  to  effectuate  objects  never 
intended  by  the  great  parties  by  whom  the  constitution  was  framed,  to 
be  intrusted  to  the  controlling  guardianship  of  the  federal  government, 
should  render  necessary  measures  of  a  defensive  character,  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  people  of  the  state,  and  the  vindication  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States." 

Mr.  Berrien,  having  stated  the  purport  of  the  protest,  said  it  was  now 
delivered  to  be  deposited  in  the  archives  of  the  federal  government,  to 
serve  whenever  occasion  might  require  it,  as  an  authentic  testimony  of  the 
solemn  dissent  of  one  of  the  sovereign  states  of  this  union,  from  the  act 
therein  protested  against,  as  an  infraction  of  the  constitutional  compact 
by  which  she  is  united  to  the  other  members  of  the  confederacy.  Mr. 
Berrien  expressed  his  own  attachment  and  that  of  Georgia,  to  the  federal 
compact,  and  begged  gentlemen  not  to  believe  that  this  act  was  one  of 
temporary  excitement.  He  adverted  to  the  efficiency  with  which  this 
government  had  sustained  itself  during  so  many  trials,  and  expressed  an 
opinion,  that  it  was  yet  to  undergo  a  more  fearful  trial  in  questions 
affecting  our  internal  peace,  an  event  which,  he  hoped,  might  be  far  off. 
On  his  motion,  the  letter  of  the  governor  and  protest  were  laid  on  the 
table,  and  printed. 

The  South  Carolina  protest  was  presented  by  Mr.  Smith,  senator  from 
that  state.  It  assigns  at  length  the  reasons  for  protesting  against  the 
system  of  protecting  duties,  which  it  pronounces  "  unconstitutional,  op- 
pressive and  unjust :"  and,  lest  an  apparent  acquiescence  in  the  system 
should  be  drawn  into  precedent,  the  legislature,  in  the  name  of  the  com- 
monwealth, claim  to  enter  their  protest  ',n  the  journals  of  the  senate. 
Mr.  Smith  adverted  to  the  various  restrictive  measures  of  the  general 
government — tariffs,  embargo,  and  non-intercourse  acts — under  which  his 
state  had  suffered.     He  stated  in  the  course  of  his  remarks,  that  "  he  be- 


472  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

lieved  there  was  not  a  man  in  the  country  not  interested  in  manufactures, 
who  would  not  be  glad  to  see  all  the  goods  used  in  the  country  smuggled 
into  it.  He  believed  there  was  not  a  virtuous  man  who  would  inform. 
We  had  heretofore  been  celebrated  as  a  moral  people ;  but  these  were 
the  effects  of  your  tariff  system." 

Mr,  Hayne  also  complained  of  the  effects  of  the  policy  of  the  general 
government  upon  the  south  ;  discussed  the  question  of  the  constitution- 
ality of  the  protecting  system  ;  and  undertook  to  prove  that  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son had  been  unjustly  claimed  as  a  friend  to  that  principle,  referring  to 
his  letter  of  December,  1825,  to  Mr.  Giles,  to  prove  that  he  considered 
the  system  unconstitutional.     The  protest  was  ordered  to  be  printed. 

A  bill  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Dickerson,  of  New  Jersey,  December  13, 
1826,  "  to  provide  for  the  distribution  of  a  part  of  the  revenues  of  the 
United  States  among  the  several  states  of  the  union."  Of  the  ten  mil- 
lions of  dollars  appropriated  annually  to  the  sinking  fund,  by  the  act  of 
1817,  the  bill  proposed  to  distribute  five  millions  annually  for  four  years 
among  the  several  states  in  the  ratio  of  direct  taxation.  It  was  intended 
hy,  the  mover  as  an  experiment,  which,  if  successful,  would  be  followed 
by  an  adoption  of  its  principle  in  a  more  permanent  form.  The  objects 
of  the  bill  were  alleged  to  be,  to  provide  funds,  in  all  the  states,  for  pur- 
poses of  education  and  internal  improvement;  and,  by  transferring  to 
the  state  legislatures  the  application  of  a  part  of  the  surplus  funds,  to 
relieve  congress  from  a  formidable  weight  of  legislation,  and  to  prevent  a 
concentration  of  power  in  the  general  government  never  intended  to  be 
vested  there  by  the  framers  of  the  constitution. 

Mr.  Dickerson  supported  his  bill  by  an  elaborate  speech,  m  which  he 
urged  the  vast  advantage  of  this  sum  to  the  states,  without  any  disadvan- 
tage to  the  general  government.  So  rapidly  had  the  public  debt  been 
diminished,  and  so  ample  would  still  be  the  means  of  payment,  that  no 
inconvenience  would  be  experienced  by  the  withdrawal  of  five  millions 
annually.  He  believed  that  a  gradual  distribution  of  the  surplus  in  the 
manner  proposed,  would  produce  a  greater  good  than  would  be  done  by  a 
more  speedy  extinguishment  of  the  public  debt,  and  the  distribution  at 
once  of  a  large  surplus  suddenly  accumulated.  The  bill  was,  on  motion 
of  Mr.  Benton,  laid  on  the  table.  The  proposition  seems  to  have  found 
little  favor  with  the  senate. 

At  the  session  of  1828  and  1829,  Mr.  Dickerson  again  brought  this 
proposition  before  the  senate,  but  with  no  better  success.  He  adv^ocated 
the  bill  on  the  same  grounds  as  when  it  was  introduced  two  years  before. 
A  large  portion  of  the  revenues  must  soon  be  appropriated  to  objects  of 
internal  improvements,  either  by  the  general  government,  or  by  the 
states.     To  make  roads  and  canals,  congress  had  not  a  constitutional 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENT  FUND-  .  473 

right,  even  with  the  consent  of  the  states.  In  favor  of  this  opinion,  he 
referred  to  the  veto  of  Madison,  in  1817,  to  the  hill  proposi;]g  to  set 
apart  certain  funds  for  constructing  roads  and  canals  and  for  improving 
water  courses  in  the  states,  with  the  assent  of  the  states.  Mr.  Madison 
said :  *'  If  a  general  power  to  construct  roads  and  canals,  and  to  im- 
prove the  navigation  of  water  courses,  with  the  train  of  powers  incident 
thereto,  be  not  possessed  by  congress,  the  assent  of  the  states,  as  pro- 
vided for  in  the  bill,  can  not  confer  the  power."  By  the  passage  of  this 
bill,  the  constitutional  objection  would  be  avoided  ;  and  the  states  could 
make  a  more  just  and  beneficial  application  of  the  money  than  could  be 
done  by  the  general  government. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Maryland,  was  of  the  opinion  that,  when  the  public 
debt  was  paid,  it  would  be  better,  instead  of  continuing  to  raise  the  rev- 
enue, to  leave  in  the  pockets  of  the  citizens  the  surplus  which  it  was  pro- 
posed to  divide  among  the  states.  He  would  therefore  reduce  the  duties 
on  imports.  He  objected  to  the  project,  also,  that  it  would  encourage 
the  states  to  rely  for  support  "on  the  general  government.  And  farther, 
congress  had  no  right  to  raise  a  revenue  for  the  purpose  of  distribut- 
ing it. 

Mr.  Hayne,  of  South  Carolina,  said,  those  were  mistaken  who  sup 
posed  this  plan  would  settle  the  distracting  question  of  internal  improve- 
ment. Calls  for  money  for  this  purpose  would  continue.  He  thought 
it  better  to  purchase  up  and  extinguish  the  public  debt,  even  before  it 
became  due.  He  believed  the  whole  of  the  national  debt  could  be  paid 
in  1833,  and  before  the  close  of  the  next  administration;  and  that  the 
great  and  good  man  who  was  about  to  wield  the  destinies  of  this  coun- 
try would  not  desire  to  earn  a  greater  honor  than  to  have  it  inscribed 
on  his  tomb-stone,  that  he  had  extinguished  the  national  debt. 

Mr.  Benton  hoped  the  example  of  England,  the  mother,  would  not  be 
lost  upon  the  United  States,  her  child.  About  a  hundred  years  ago, 
England  enjoyed  a  long  peace  under  the  timid  administration  of  Sir 
Robert  Walpole,  in  which  the  public  debt,  then  small,  might  be  paid 
off.  At  his  instance,  half  a  million  sterling  was  annually  diverted  from 
the  sinking  fund,  under  the  supposition  that  the  money,  not  being  want- 
ed by  the  public  creditors,  could  be  used  more  beneficially  for  other  pur- 
poses. But  the  debt  grew  rapidly ;  and  the  country  was  soon  over- 
whelmed with  taxes.  He  joined  in  the  wish  of  the  senator  from  South 
Carolina,  that  the  debt  might  be  paid  oiF  under  the  ensuing  administra- 
tion.    Such  a  consummation  would  confer  new  fame  upon  G-en.  Jackson. 

The  debate  was  continued  by  Messrs.  Dickerson,  Hayne,  Johnson,  of 
Louisiana,  Benton,  Kane,  Webster,  Berrien,  and  M'Lane.  The  bill 
seems  to  have  been  advocated  by  no  other  senator  than  the  mover.     It 


474  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

was  subsequently,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Dickerson,  referred  to  a  select  com- 
mittee for  modification,  but  no  report  was  made  upon  it. 

On  the  lOtli  of  February,  1829,  Mr.  Hendricks,  of  Indiana,  presented 
to  the  senate,  a  resolution  of  the  legislature  of  that  state,  declaring,  that 
the  state,  "  being  a  sovereign,  free,  and  independent  state,  has  the  exclu- 
sive right  to  the  soil  and  eminent  domain  of  all  the  unappropriated  lands 
within  her  acknowledged  boundaries;"  and  that  this  right  "was  reserved 
for  her  by  the  state  of  Virginia  in  the  deed  of  cession  of  the  north- 
western territory  to  the  United  States,  being  confirmed  and  established 
by  the  articles  of  confederacy  and  the  constitution  of  the  United  States." 
The  resolution  also  instructed  their  senators  and  representatives  in  con- 
gress to  use  their  exertions  to  induce  the  United  States  to  acknowledge 
this  vested  right  of  the  state,  and  to  place  her  upon  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  states. 

The  claim  of  the  state  to  the  public  lands  within  her  boundaries,  Mr. 
Hendricks  said,  was  based  upon  the  stipulation  in  the  deed,  by  which 
Virginia  ceded  her  western  lands  to  the  United  States,  that  that  portion 
now  forming  the  state  of  Indiana,  should,  when  admitted  into  the  union, 
be  received  as  a  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  state,  and  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  states,  in  all  respects  whatever.  These  lands, 
as  well  as  those  ceded  by  other  original  states  to  the  general  govern- 
ment, were  ceded  to  and  received  by  the  United  States  for  the  express 
purpose  of  paying  the  national  debt ;  but  this,  it  was  contended,  did  not 
interfere  with  the  construction  given  by  that  state  to  the  deed  of  cession. 
A  long  time  was  expected  to  intervene  between  that  period  and  the  ad- 
mission of  the  state,  and  thirty-two  years  had  actually  intervened,  in 
which  time  the  lands,  or  a  part  of  them,  might  have  been  sold,  and  the 
debt  extinguished.  It  could  not,  he  said,  have  been  the  intention  of 
congress  to  interfere  with  those  lands  after  they  should  have  fallen  within 
the  boundaries  of  states  admitted  into  the  union  :  the  article  of  con- 
federation declaring,  that  no  "  state  should  be  deprived  of  territory  for 
the  benefit  of  the  United  States." 

But  if  this  view  of  the  subject  was  erroneous,  it  was  nevertheless  im- 
politic and  inexpedient  for  the  general  government  to  continue  to  assert 
its  claim  to  the  unappropriated  lands  of  one-third  of  the  states.  While 
the  public  lands  remain  in  the  hands  of  the  federal  government,  the  new 
states  will  not,  can  not  be  satisfied ;  because  congress  was,  and  must 
ever  be,  incompetent  to  legislate  understandingly  on  the  subject.  The 
legislatures  of  the  states  were  much  better  acquainted  with  the  qualities 
of  the  soil,  the  necessities  of  the  people,  and  were  better  judges  of  the 
measures  adapted  to  promote  the  interests  of  their  citizens. 

Mr.  Noble  differed  with  his  colleague.     Congress,  he  believed,  would 


PUBLIC    LANDS    IN    INDIANA.  475 

never  relinquisli  these  lands  to  the  states  in  which  they  were,  and  to 
hold  out  the  idea  that  they  would,  was  injurious  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
new  states.  It  would  be  unjust  to  deprive  the  old  states  of  their  share 
in  the  public  lands.  It  was  through  the  protection  and  support  they 
had  received  from  the  old  states,  that  the  new  states  were  indebted  for 
their  prosperity.  On  his  motion,  the  resolution  was  referred  to  the 
committee  on  public  lands. 

In  the  house  of  representatives,  a  select  committee  was  appointed  at 
this  session,  to  whom  was  referred  a  resolution  relative  to  the  expe- 
diency of  distributing  annually,  amongst  the  states,  all  moneys  arising 
from  the  sales  of  the  public  lands.  The  committee  made  their  report 
on  the  25th  of  February,  1829.  The  report  contains  a  history  of  the 
public  lands,  and  states  the  quantity  to  which  the  government  still  held 
the  right  of  soil,  to  be  more  than  1,000  millions  of  acres.  The  com- 
mittee say : 

"  The  public  lands  as  now  held  by  the  United  States,  may  be  classed 
under  the  three  following  heads  : 

"  1st.  Those  which  were  ceded  by  several  of  the  old  states  to  the 
confederated  government,  and  the  present  government  of  the  United 
States. 

*'  2dly.  Those  which  were  acquired  by  purchase  from  France  by  the 
treaty  of  Paris  of  the  30th  of  April,  1803,  (Louisiana). 

"  Sdly.  Those  purchased  of  Spain  by  the  treaty  of  Washington,  of 
the  22d  of  February,  1819,  (Florida,  and  the  territory  west  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi)." 

A  division  of  the  public  lands  amongst  the  states  had  been  suggested 
to  the  committee.  This,  they  believed,  would  be  an  injurious  measure. 
It  would  be  impossible  so  to  locate  the  several  divisions  as  to  attach  to 
them  an  equal  value.  The  states  would  have  different  systems  of  sales. 
Struggles  would  take  place  in  congress  for  measures  to  advance  the  value 
of  the  possessions  of  some  of  the  locations  over  that  of  the  others. 
Serious  collisions  would  occur.  Speculation,  fraud,  and  corruption 
would  be  attempted  in  the  state  legislatures. 

To  avoid  these  evils,  and  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  community,  the 
committee  proposed  to  give  the  states  a  direct  interest  in  the  income 
arising  from  the  sale  of  the  public  lands.  This  measure  would  check 
further  concessions,  and  prevent  the  selfish  from  availing  themselves  of 
the  advantage  presented  by  some  great  crisis  of  public  affairs  to  obtain 
propitiatory  concessions  from  rival  parties  injurious  to  the  general  in- 
terest. As  a  guard  to  the  purity  of  legislation,  and  as  a  just  and  equit- 
able application  of  the  value  of  the  lands,  the  committee  recommend  the 
policy  of  distributing  the  nett  proceeds  of  all  sales  of  the  public  lands 


476  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

amxmg  the  several  states,  in  the  ratio  of  their  population.  Among  the 
benefits  of  this  plan  would  be  the  adoption  of  a  system  of  rigid  economy 
in  relation  to  the  expenditures  of  the  land  offices ;  and  no  private  or 
other  claim  would  be  sanctioned,  but  as  its  justice  should  be  clearly 
ascertained. 

A  few  days  before  the  close  of  the  session  and  of  the  presidential  term 
of  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Hamilton,  from  the  select  committee  on  retrench- 
ment, made  an  additional  report,  as  follows :  *'  That,  having  presented 
to  the  house  various  bills  and  resolutions  consequent  on  such  abuses, 
legislative  and  administrative,  to  which  they  thought  a  corrective  ought 
to  be  applied,  (upon  which  bills  and  resolutions,  the  shortness  of  the 
session,  and  the  interposition  of  bills  of  a  public  nature  having  priority 
on  the  calendar,  have  precluded  the  action  of  congress,)  they  deem  it 
important,  before  the  close  of  their  labors,  that  the  house  should  dis- 
tinctly express  its  opinion  on  the  following  cardinal  subjects  of  public 
economy : 

"1.  Be  it  therefore  resolved,  That  as  no  free  people  should  be  burdened 
with  unnecessary  taxation,  it  is  expedient  to  pay  the  public  debt  with 
all  convenient  dispatch. 

*'  2.  That  this  house  has  a  right  to  expect  that  the  executive  will  sub- 
mit to  congress  at  its  next  session,  a  comprehensive  scheme  of  retrench- 
ment, which  shall  extend  to  the  lopping  off  of  all  useless  offices,  and  to 
securing  a  more  effective  accountability  in  those  which  are  retained. 

"  3.  That  a  retrenchment  of  the  fixed  as  well  as  contingent  expendi- 
tures of  congress,  is  indispensably  necessary,  more  especially  the  last, 
which  are  essentially  liable  to  abuse." 

Mr.  Hamilton  addressed  the  house  on  the  resolutions  until  the  ex- 
piration of  the  hour  allotted  to  morning  business.  No  action  upon  the 
resolutions  was  taken. 


CHAPTEK  XXXYIII. 

INAUGURATION    OF    PRESIDENT     JACKSON. REMOVALS    FROM     OFFICE. 


Andrew  Jackson  was  inaugurated  president  of  the  United  States  on 
the  4th  day  of  March,  1829.  At  half-past  eleven  o'clock,  he  entered 
the  senate  chamber,  attended  by  the  marshal  of  the  district  and  the  com- 


INAUGURATION    OF  PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  477 

mittee  of  arrangements.  The  cliief  justice  of  the  United  States  and  the 
associate  judges  were  seated  on  the  right  of  the  president's  chair,  and 
the  foreign  ministers  in  their  official  costumes  on  the  left.  At  about 
twelve  o'clock,  in  the  presence  of  the  senate  and  house  of  representa- 
tives, and  an  immense  concourse,  he  delivered  his  inaugural  address ;  at 
the  conclusion  of  which,  the  oath  to  support  the  constitution  was  adminis- 
tered to  him  by  chief  justice  Marshall. 

The  principles  upon  which  his  administration  was  to  be  conducted 
were  briefly  and  appropriately  stated.  He  should  keep  steadily  in  view 
the  limitations  as  well  as  the  extent  of  the  executive  power ;  observe  a 
proper  respect  for  the  rights  of  the  states,  taking  care  not  to  confound 
their  reserved  powers  with  those  granted  to  the  confederacy  ;  observe  a 
strict  and  faithful  economy  in  the  management  of  the  public  revenue,  in 
order  to  facilitate  the  extinguishment  of  the  public  debt,  and  to  counter- 
act a  tendency  to  public  and  private  profligacy,  which  a  profuse  expen- 
diture is  apt  to  engender;  recommended  equal  favor  to  agriculture, com- 
merce, and  manufactures  in  selecting  subjects  of  impost ;  and  commended 
internal  improvement  and  the  difl'usion  of  knowledge,  so  far  as  they 
could  be  promoted  constitutionally  by  the  federal  government.  He 
would  not  seek  to  enlarge  the  standing  army ;  but  would  gradually 
increase  the  navy,  and  strengthen  the  national  militia ;  and  he  would 
"  observe  toward  the  Indian  tribes  within  our  limits,  a  just  and  liberal 
policy ;  and  give  that  humane  and  considerate  attention  to  their  rights 
and  their  wants  which  are  consistent  with  the  habits  of  our  government 
and  the  feelings  of  our  people." 

Another  duty  which  he  prescribed  to  himself,  and  which  he  seems  to 
have  regarded  as  peculiarly  important,  is  alluded  to  as  follows  :  "  The 
recent  demonstration  of  public  sentiment  inscribes  on  the  list  of  execu- 
tive duties,  in  characters  too  legible  to  be  overlooked,  the  task  of  refoi'm  ; 
which  will  require,  particularly,  the  correction  of  those  abuses  that  have 
brought  the  patronage  of  the  federal  government  into  conflict  with  the 
freedom  of  elections,  and  the  counteraction  of  those  causes  which  have 
disturbed  the  rightful  course  of  appointment,  and  have  placed  or  con- 
tinued power  in  unfaithful  or  incompetent  hands." 

The  names  of  the  persons  selected  to  constitute  the  new  cabinet,  were 
the  following :  Martin  Van  Buren,  of  New  York,  secretary  of  state ; 
Samuel  D.  Ingham,  of  Pennsylvania,  secretary  of  the  treasury ;  John 
H.  Eaton,  of  Tennessee,  secretary  of  war;  John  Branch,  of  North  Caro- 
lina, secretary  of  the  navy;  John  McPherson  Berrien,  of  Georgia, 
attorney  general;  and  William  T.  Barry,  of  Kentucky,  postmaster- 
generaL  Prior  to  this  time,  the  postmaster-general  was  not  included  in 
the  cabinet.  John  M'Lean,  of  Ohio,  the  incumbent  of  that  office,  was 
appointed  an  associate  justice  of  the  supreme  court. 


478  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

For  a  development  of  the  general  policy  of  the  new  administration, 
the  public  mind  awaited  the  appearance  of  the  first  annual  message. 
The  executive  appointments,  however,  soon  discovered  the  adoption* of 
a  new  rule  in  the  exercise  of  this  power,  and  was  taken  by  many  as  an 
explanation  of  the  nature  of  the  "  reform"  alluded  to  in  the  inaugural 
address,  as  "  inscribed  on  the  list  of  executive  duties."  The  senate 
continued  in  session  until  the  17th  of  March  to  act  upon  nominations 
made  by  the  executive.  Among  the  persons  appointed,  were  a  con- 
siderable number  who  were  nominated  to  supply  vacancies  caused  by 
removal  of  incumbents.  During  the  recess  of  the  senate,  removals  were 
very  numerous.  District  marshals,  and  attorneys ;  surveyors,  inspec- 
tors, and  collectors  of  ports ;  naval  officers ;  appraisers  of  goods ;  receiv- 
ers of  public  moneys ;  auditors,  controllers  and  clerks  in  the  execu- 
tive departments,  were  displaced,  and  political  adherents  appointed  in 
their  places.  But  the  most  numerous  class  of  officers  removed,  was  that 
of  postmasters,  of  whom  nearly  five  hundred  were  removed  during  the 
first  year  of  the  administration. 

This  principle  of  removal  and  appointment  was  of  course  made  the 
subject  of  general  complaint  and  severe  animadversion  by  the  party  thus 
proscribed.  It  revived,  to  some  extent,  the  question  of  the  right  of  the 
executive  to  displace  public  officers,  or  to  fill  vacancies  that  do  not 
"  happen^'^  in  the  recess  of  the  senate ;  it  being  considered  by  many  of 
the  opposition  a  perversion  of  the  word  happen  in  the  constitution  to 
apply  it  to  a  vacancy  caused  by  removal  except  for  official  misbehavior 
or  incompetency.  But  conceding  the  practice  to  be  constitutional,  it  was 
held  to  be  an  unjustifiable  exercise  of  power.  The  proscription  of  men 
for  an  honest  difi"erence  of  sentiment  not  at  all  afi"ecting  the  faithful  dis- 
charge of  a  public  duty,  was  inimical  to  freedom  of  opinion  and  politi- 
cal integrity.  It  was,  moreover,  a  practice  without  precedent  in  any 
preceding  administration.  The  friends  of  the  administration  claimed 
for  the  executive  the  right  to  exercise  the  power  of  removal  at  his  dis- 
cretion ;  and  as  he  was  intrusted  with  the  execution  of  the  laws,  it  was 
also  eminently  proper  that  he  should  be  permitted  to  select  for  his  assist- 
ants, those  for  whose  acts  he  was  responsible.  This  right  of  selection 
necessarily  implied  that  of  the  unrestricted  substitution  of  one  person 
for  another. 

There  were  those,  however,  who,  though  they  readily  conceded  to  the 
president  the  power  of  removal  in  accordance  with  the  construction  of 
the  constitution  as  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of  the  national  legislature, 
nevertheless  disapproved  its  exercise  to  the  extent  to  which  it  had  been 
carried,  especially  in  the  removal  of  postmasters.  Niles,  the  editor  of 
the  "  Weekly  Register,"  and  a  veteran  republican,  commented  on  this 
subject,  thus : 


REMOVALS    FROM    OFFICE.  479 

"  Political  considerations,  except  those  of  the  broadest  and  most  noble 
nature,  (in  the  spread  of  intelligence,)  never  entered  into  the  institution 
of  the  post-ofl5ce  department.  It  becomes  contaminated  when  reduced 
to  the  dominion  of  party ;  and  confidence,  once  lost,  is  slowly  regained. 
Its  operations  should  be  as  unsuspected  of  party  management  as  the  purity 
of  a  vestal ;  and  while  expecting  that  many  changes  would  be  made  by 
the  new  administration  in  the  officers  superintending  other  branches  of 
the  public  business,  we  strongly  hoped  that  the  post-office  department 
would  have  remained  unsubjected  to  any  private  or  political  feeling  of 
that  administration.  But  that  hope  was  not  long  indulged.  The 
arrangement  of  the  postmaster-general  into  "  the  cabinet"  with  after 
events,  which  transferred  Mr.  M'Lean  to  the  bench  of  the  supreme  court, 
and  introduced  Mr.  Barry  to  the  direction  of  the  establishment,  filled 
us  with  something  like  alarm,  and  caused  us  to  recollect  events  long 
past, — when  a  vice-president  of  the  United  States,  (Mr.  Jefferson,)  not 
only  declined  the  superscription  of  his  own  letters,  but  often  sent  them 
inclosed  to  persons  other  than  those  for  whom  they  were  intended,  by 
previous  arrangement ;  and,  when  at  home  in  Virginia,  sometimes  caused 
them  to  be  dropped  into  a  post-office  a  little  removed  from  his  own ; 
when  it  was  believed  that  the  names  of  the  subscribers  to  a  certain  news- 
paper, (the  Aurora,  by  Bache  or  Duane,)  at  particular  places,  were  offi- 
cially returned  to  '  head  quarters'  for  political  purposes.  Whether  the 
suspicions  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and  the  party  that  supported  him  were  well 
founded  or  not,  the  simple  fact  that  many  of  the  deputy  postmasters 
were  violent  partisans,  and  some  had  been  put  into  office  as  such,  justi- 
fied them  and  required  this  caution.  *  *  *  Deeply  interested  in  the 
business  of  the  post-office  establishment,  and  knowing  the  effects  that 
must  follow  a  loss  of  confidence  in  its  management,  we  were  exceedingly 
anxious  that  honest  and  capable,  industrious  and  obliging  postmasters 
should  not  be  dismissed  for  opinion's  sake.  If  there  were  abuses  of  the 
privileges  allowed  to  postmasters  on  the  one  side,  they  were  not  wanting 
on  the  other.  What  was  improper  in  one  party  can  not  have  been  right 
in  its  opponent.  And  there  is  also  this  important  difference  :  not  0}ic 
of  the  postmasters  recently  in  office  had  been  appointed  to  supersede 
another  because  of  political  opinion,  so  far  as  we  ever  heard;  and  even 
if  had  been  so,  it  was  to  have  been  expected  that  they  were  rather  against 
than  favorable  to  the  last  administration;  Mr.  M'Lean  being  understood 
as  a  decided  friend  of  the  election  of  G-en.  Jackson.  Yet  we  do  not 
believe  he  suffered  his  private  feelings  to  enter  into  the  performance  of 
his  public  duties.  But  now,  persons  are  dismissed  without  the  preferring 
of  charges  against  them  affecting  their  moral  character  or  personal 
standing." 


180  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

We  do  not  propose  to  discuss,  in  this  place,  the  justice  or  propriety 
df  this  new  rule  of  appointment  introduced  into  the  administration  of 
the  government  by  Gen.  Jackson,  and  since  that  time  invariably  prac- 
ticed by  every  dominant  party ;  nor  to  inquire  into  the  reasons  for  a 
practice  so  directly  contrary  to  the  rule  prescribed  by  himself  to  one  of 
his  late  predecessors.  He  had  also  in  the  distribution  of  executive 
patronage,  disappointed  the  public  expectation  by  an  unusually  liberal 
dispensation  to  members  of  congress — a  practice  which  he  had,  in  his 
letter  to  the  legislature  of  Tennessee,  declared  to  tend  inevitably  to 
corruption.  As  might  be  expected,  his  opponents  availed  themselves 
of  whatever  advantage  might  be  gained  from  an  exposure  of  the  incon- 
sistency of  his  profession  and  practice.  It  may  here  be  observed,  how- 
ever, that  no  political  principle  or  measure  deliberately  adopted  as  a 
party  expedient,  will  ever  be  wanting  in  apologists  and  defenders ;  and 
however  repugnant  to  the  feelings  of  an  unsophisticated  politician  may 
be  the  idea  of  proscription  for  opinion's  sake,  it  has  become  so  familiar 
as  to  have  lost  its  deformity  in  the  view  of  the  mass  of  politicians,  and 
long  since  ceased  to  afford  the  basis  of  an  effective  electioneering  argu- 
ment against  any  party  practicing  it. 

The  number  of  persons  removed  from  oflSce  by  each  of  the  several 
presidents,  had  been  as  follows :  By  Gen.  Washington,  in  eight  years, 
nine^  one  a  defaulter;  by  John  Adams,  in  four  j^ears,  ten,  one  a 
defaulter ;  by  Jefferson,  in  eight  years,  thirty-nine ;  by  Mr.  Madison, 
in  eight  years,  Jive^  three  defaulters ;  by  Mr.  Monroe,  in  eight  years, 
nine,  of  which  six  were  for  cause ;  by  John  Quincy  Adams,  in  four 
years,  two,  both  for  cause. 

The  appointment  by  Mr.  Adams,  of  certain  members  of  congress  to 
office,  having  been  made  the  occasion  of  a  call  upon  him  "  for  a  list  of 
appointments  given  by  the  executive  to  members  of  cocgress,  since  the 
foundation  of  the  government" — the  object  of  the  information  being 
alleged  to  be  to  enable  congress  to  remove  an  evil  said  to  exist  and  to 
be  growing — the  president  communicated  the  information.  The  list 
transmitted  embraced  the  names  of  members  appointed  during  their 
official  terms  and  "  for  six  months  thereafter,"  as  required  by  the  resolu- 
tion, and  is  stated  in  Niles'  Register  of  June  20,  1829,  to  contain,  in 
the  aggregate,  117,  as  follows  :  Appointed  by  Washington,  10  ;  by  John 
Adams,  13;  by  Jefferson,  25;  by  Madison,  29;  by  Monroe,  35;  by 
John  Quincy  Adams,  in  thirteen  months,  to  the  time  of  the  report,  5  ; 
to  wit,  Henry  Clay,  secretary  of  state  ;  James  Barbour,  secretary  of 
war ;  Bufus  King,  minister  to  Great  Britain ;  Joel  B.  Poinsett,  minis- 
ter to  Mexico;  and  Lot  Clark,  postmaster,  Norwich,  N.  Y.  During 
the  first  three  months,  the  number  of  members  appointed  by  president 


MEETING    OF    CONGRESS.  481 

Jackson,  was  12;  including  the  whole  cabinet,  except  Mr.  Barry; 
foreign  ministers,  Louis  M'Lane,  to  England ;  William  C.  Rives,  to 
France;  Thomas  P.  Moore,  to  Colombia;  George  W.  Owen,  collector 
at  Mobile ;  John  Chandler,  collector  at  Portland  ;  Jeromus  Johnson, 
a2)praiser  of  goods  at  New  York;  John  Gr.  Stower,  of  New  York, 
United  States  district-attorney  for  Florida. 

The  1st  session  of  the  21st  congress,  as  also  the  first  under  president 
Jackson's  administration,  commenced  the  7th  of  December,  1829.  In 
both  brandhes  there  were  majorities  in  favor  of  the  administration.  In 
the  preceding  congress,  the  majority  of  6  in  the  senate,  had  been 
reduced  to  4  ;  while  that  of  17  in  the  house,  had  been  increased  to  59, 
as  was  estimated. 

The  message  of  the  president  w^as  delivered  the  next  day.  Besides 
the  ordinary  topics  embraced  in  a  review  of  our  internal  affairs  and  our 
foreign  relations,  several  measures,  no't  usually  presented  to  congress, 
were  introduced  into  the  message.  He  suggested  an  amendment  of  the 
constitution,  bringing  the  election  of  president  and  vice-president 
directly  to  the  people ;  restricting  the  service  of  the  chief  magistrate  to 
a  single  term  of  four  or  six  years ;  prohibiting  tlie  appointment  of  mem- 
bers by  the  president  in  whose  election  they  may  have  been  officially 
concerned;  and  suggesting  the  limitation  to  four  years  of  all  offices 
which  now  exceeded  that  term. 

The  attention  of  congress  was  also  invited  to  an  inquiry  into  the  con- 
dition of  the  government  with  a  view  to  ascertain  what  offices  could  be 
dispensed  with,  what  expenses  retrenched,  and  what  improvements  might 
be  made  in  the  organization  of  its  various  parts  to  secure  the  responsi- 
bility of  public  agents. 

Among  the  subjects  brought  to  the  notice  of  congress,  was  that  of  the 
rechartering  of  the  bank  of  the  United  States.  It  was  thus  alluded  to  : 
''  The  charter  of  the  bank  of  the  United  States  expires  in  1836,  and  its 
stockholders  will  most  probably  appl}^  for  a  renewal  of  their  privileges. 
In  order  to  avoid  the  evils  resulting  from  precipitancy  in  a  measure 
involving  such  important  principles  and  such  deep  pecuniary  interests, 
I  feel  that  I  can  not  in  justice  to  the  parties  interested,  too  soon  pre- 
sent it  to  the  deliberate  consideration  of  the  legislature  and  the  people. 
Both  the  constitutionality  and  the  expediency  of  the  law  creating  this 
bank  are  well  questioned  by  a  large  portion  of  our  fellow-citizens  ;  and 
it  must  be  admitted  by  all,  that  it  has  failed  in  the  great  end  of  estab- 
lishing a  uniform  and  sound  currency. 

"  Under  these  circumstances,  if  such  an  institution  is  essential  to  the 
fiscal  operations  of  the  government,  I  submit  to  the  wisdom  of  the 
legislature,  whether  a  national  one,  founded  upon  the  credit  of  the  gov- 

31 


482  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ernment  and  its  revenues,  might  not  be  devised,  whicli  would  avoid  all 
constitutional  difficulties,  and  at  the  same  time  secure  all  the  advantages 
to  the  government  and  country  that  were  expected  to  result  from  the 
present  bank." 

The  subject  of  our  Indian  affairs,  though  not  a  new  one,  was  treated 
in  a  manner  indicating  a  contemplated  change  in  the  policy  of  the  gov- 
ernment in  relation  to  the  Indian  tribes — a  change  which,  if  not  actually 
demanded  by  Grcorgia  and  Alabama,  was  known  to  be  in  accordance 
with  their  wishes.  The  president  says  :  "  A  portion  of  the  southern 
tribes,  having  mingled  much  with  the  whites,  and  made  some  progress 
in  the  arts  of  civilized  life,  have  lately  attempted  to  erect  an  indepen- 
dent government  within  the  limits  of  Georgia  and  Alabama.  These 
states,  claiming  to  be  the  only  sovereigns  within  their  territories,  ex- 
tended their  laws  over  the  Indians,  which  induced  the  latter  to  call 
upon  the  United  States  for  protection." 

Deeming  the  erection  of  such  government  repugnant  to  that  provision 
of  the  constitution  which  declares,  that  "  no  new  state  shall  be  formed 
or  erected  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  other  state,"  without  the  con- 
sent of  its  legislature,  he  had  informed  the  Indians,  that  their  attempt 
to  establish  an  independent  government  would  not  be  countenanced,  and 
had  advised  them  to  emigrate  beyond  the  Mississippi,  or  submit  to  the 
laws  of  those  states.  He  recommended  that  territory  should  be  guar- 
antied to  them  beyond  the  limits  of  any  state  or  territory  now  formed, 
where  they  might  enjoy  a  government  of  their  own  choice^  and  where 
"  the  benevolent  might  endeavor  to  teach  them  the  arts  of  civilization." 
And  they  were  to  be  informed  that,  if  they  remained  within  the  limits 
of  the  states,  they  must  be  subject  to  their  laws. 

Presuming  that,  after  the  extinction  of  the  public  debt,  a  large  sur- 
plus would  accumulate  in  the  treasury,  before  the  public  revenues  would, 
by  a  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the  tariff,  be  reduced  to  a  sum  required 
merely  for  the  current  expenses  of  the  government,  the  disposition  of 
this  surplus  presented  a  subject  for  the  serious  deliberation  of  congress. 
Appropriations  for  purposes  of  internal  improvement  being  regarded  by 
many  of  the  people  as  infractions  of  the  constitution,  he  proposed,  in 
order  to  avoid  this  as  well  as  other  objections,  and  as  "the  most  safe, 
just,  and  federal  disposition  which  could  be  made  of  this  surplus  rev- 
enue, its  apportionment  among  the  several  states,  according  to  their 
ratio  of  representation;"  and  if  this  measure  should  be  liable  to  the 
same  objection,  it  would  be  expedient  to  propose  to  the  states  an  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution  authorizing  it. 

The  ground  to  be  assumed  by  president  Jackson  in  relation  to  the 
tariff  and  internal  improvements,  was  the  subject  of  much  speculation. 


fresident"'s  message.  483 

His  votes  on  these  questions  in  the  senate  of  the  United  States,  had 
indeed  placed  him  among  the  advocates  of  a  liberal  construction  of  the 
constitution.  He  had  voted  during  his  short  service  in  that  body,  for  a 
large  number  of  bills  appropriating  money  for  purposes  of  internal  im- 
provement. He  had  cooperated  with  ultra  protectionists  in  the  enact- 
ment of  the  tariff  of  1824  ;  and  he  had  but  recently,  in  his  answer  to  the 
legislature  of  Indiana,  given  assurances  of  his  undiminished  attachment 
to  these  principles.  But  his  supporters  in  the  southern  states  consisted 
chiefly  of  the  former  friends  of  Mr.  Crawford,  who  were  uncompromis- 
ing opponents  of  the  policy  and  principles  with  which  Gen.  Jackson  had 
been  identified.  How  to  dispose  of  these  questions  without  seriously 
affecting  his  standing  with  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  branches  of  his 
party,  was  considered  a  difficult  matter.  His  course  in  relation  to  in- 
ternal improvements  is  hinted  in  the  preceding  paragraph  respecting  the 
disposition  of  the  surplus  revenue.  His  views  on  the  subject  of  the 
tariff  are  given  more  at  length. 

The  operation  of  the  tariff,  he  said,  had  not  been  so  injurious  to 
agriculture  and  commerce,  or  so  beneficial  to  manufactures  as  had  been 
anticipated.  Importations  of  foreign  goods  had  not  been  sensibly  dimin- 
ished, while  domestic  competition  had  increased  the  production  beyond 
the  demand  for  home  consumption,  and  the  manufacturers  had  been  sub- 
jected to  partial  loss  by  the  reduction  of  prices.  Unrestricted  inter- 
course between  nations  was  desirable ;  but  the  selfish  legislation  of  other 
nations  must  be  counteracted  by  our  own.  Some  provisions  of  the 
tariff  required  modification ;  and  the  rule  to  be  observed  in  graduating 
the  duties  upon  foreign  products  was  that  which  would  place  our  own  in 
fair  competition  with  them ;  and  there  were  controlling  inducements  to 
advance  a  step  beyond  this  point  in  regard  to  articles  of  primary  neces- 
sity in  time  of  war.  The  delicacy  of  this  operation  required  the  observ- 
ance of  the  utmost  caution.  Frequent  legislation  in  regard  to  any 
branch  of  industry,  affecting  its  value,  and  transferring  its  capital  to 
new  channels,  was  productive  of  hazardous  speculation  and  loss.  In 
deliberating  on  these  subjects,  local  feelings  and  prejudices  should  yield 
to  the  determination  to  promote  the  great  interests  of  the  whole.  They 
should  not  be  connected  with  the  party  conflicts  of  the  day.  The  differ- 
ent sections  of  the  country  should  unite  in  diminishing  any  burden  of 
which  either  might  justly  complain. 

The  agricultural  interest,  from  its  connection  with  every  other,  and 
from  its  superior  importance,  deserved  particular  attention.  It  was 
principally  as  manufactures  and  commerce  tended  to  increase  the  value 
of  agricultural  productions,  that  they  deserved  the  fostering  care  of 
government. 


484  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

On  the  whole,  the  subject  was  skilfully  treated.  No  sentiment  was 
expressed  to  which  any  southern  opponent  of  the  tariff  would  be  likely 
to  take  exception ;  and  although  some  of  the  friends  of  the  tariff  pro- 
fessed to  discover  in  the  general  tenor  of  the  language  of  this  part  of 
the  message  indications  of  a  change  of  position  on  this  question,  it  is  not 
easy  to  perceive  how  any  sentence  could,  by  fair  construction,  be  regarded 
as  hostile  to  the  protective  policy.  » 

The  power  of  the  president  to  remove  public  officers  except  for  cause, 
was  discussed  at  this  session.  Kesolutions  on  the  subject  were  offered 
in  the  senate  by  Mr.  Holmes,  of  Maine,  and  by  Mr.  Barton,  of  Mis- 
souri; and  in  the  house  by  Mr.  Chilton,  of  Kentucky.  The  objects 
embraced  in  the  different  resolutions  presented,  were  to  ascertain  the 
number  of  removals  made  by  the  president,  and  the  reasons  for  the 
same;  and  the  exercise  of  the  power  in  removing  officers  when  not 
required  for  the  faithful  execution  of  the  laws,  and  of  filling  the  vacan- 
cies, during  the  recess  of  the  senate,  was  declared  to  be  against  the 
public  interest,  the  rights  of  the  state,  and  the  spirit  of  the  constitution. 

In  the  senate,  the  question  of  the  executive  power  of  removal  and 
appointment,  was  discussed,  both  in  secret  session,  and  in  open  debate. 
Of  the  speeches  reported,  those  of  Messrs.  Holmes  and  Barton  in  favor 
of  the  resolutions  are  the  principal,  and  of  those  in  opposition,  that  of 
Mr.  Bibb,  of  Kentucky.  Several  of  the  speeches  made  in  secret  session 
do  not  appear  in  the  "  congressional  debates." 

Mr.  Barton  referred  to  the  77th  number  of  the  "  Federalist,"  to 
sustain  the  exposition  for  which  he  contended.  It  was  there  said  :  "  The 
consent  of  that  body,  (the  senate,)  would  be  necessary  to  displace  as 
well  as  to  appoint.  A  change  of  the  chief  magistrate,  therefore,  would 
not  occasion  so  violent  or  so  general  a  revolution  in  the  offices  of  the 
government,  as  might  be  expected  if  he  were  the  sole  disposer  of  the 
offices."  The  same  writer,  in  reference  to  the  objection  that  the  senate 
might  influence  the  president,  and  assume  the  control  of  the  government, 
says :  "  If  by  influencing  the  president  be  meant  restraining  him,  this  is 
precisely  what  must  have  been  intended.  And  it  has  been  shown  that 
this  restraint  would  be  salutary,  at  the  same  time  that  it  would  not  be 
such  as  to  destroy  a  single  advantage  to  be  looked  for  from  the  uncon- 
trolled agency  of  that  magistrate.  The  right  of  nomination  would  pro- 
duce all  the  good  without  the  ill." 

Appended  to  this  number  of  the  Federalist,  is  the  following  note,  in  the 
later  editions  :  "  This  construction  has  since  been  rejected  by  the  legis- 
lature ;  and  it  is  now  settled  in  practice  that  the  power  of  displacing  be- 
longs exclusively  to  the  president."  Mr.  Barton  said  :  "  This  note  ought 
to  be  expunged  as  calculated  to  mislead  students  and  weak  cabinets.    It 


POWER    OF    REMOVAL.  486 

Is  not  true,  in  point  of  fact,  that  the  legislature  has  rejected  this  con- 
struction ;  nor  true,  in  point  of  law,  that  the  senate  can  renounce  an  iota 
of  their  restraining  power  that  belongs  to  their  organization,  and  chiefly 
distinguishes  our  checked  and  restrained  executive  from  one  of  arbitrary- 
will.  The  whole  idea  of  the  annotator  was  taken  from  the  laws  respect- 
ing the  assistants  of  the  president,  to  perform  the  duties  prescribed  by 
him  as  under  the  act  of  1789,  and  not  applicable  to  the  officers  of  the 
public,  or  of  the  law,  to  perform  duties  prescribed  by  the  laws  of  the 
lan*d.  The  correctness  of  Hamilton,  (the  writer  of  the  article,)  and  the 
error  of  the  annotator  and  his  disciples  of  the  majority,  can  be  demon- 
strated, if  there  be  truth  in  logic  and  common  sense.  The  argument 
stands  thus  :  Without  the  concurrent  power  of  the  senate  in  matters  of 
appointing,  (as  you  admit  in  your  report  of  1826,)  the  president  becomes 
a  monarch." 

Mr.  Barton  admitted  the  right  of  the  president  to  remove  an  officer 
for  official  delinquency  or  disability,  and  to  put  a  fit  person  in  his  place. 
This  was  in  conformity  to  his  obligation  to  see  the  laws  faithfully  exe- 
cuted. But  the  doctrine  of  an  unrestricted  power  of  removal  was  a  de- 
parture from  the  exposition  and  understanding  of  the  constitution  by  the 
founders  of  the  government.  It  enabled  the  president  to  use  the  offices 
of  the  republic  as  bribes  or  weapons,  and  rendered  public  officers  depend- 
ent upon  him  for  official  existence.  It  put  it  into  his  power  to  wield  the 
whole  official  force  of  his  country — nay,  the  purse  and  the  sword  of  his  coun- 
try— against  its  liberties.  To  pervert  the  power  to  the  purpose  of  pun- 
ishing freemen  for  their  opinions  or  votes,  or  purchase  supporters,  or 
reward  office  hunters,  was  a  great  ofi"ense,  a  gross  violation  of  our  consti- 
tutional rights,  by  a  president.  He  adverted  to  the  inconsistency  of  the 
majority.  They  had  said  that  the  president  was  responsible  to  the  peo- 
ple at  the  end  of  his  term ;  and  they  could  correct  the  abuse.  Yet  the 
opponents  of  the  resolutions  refused  to  let  the  people  know  for  what 
causes  the  power  had  been  exerted ! 

Mr.  Bibb,  in  reply,  referred  to  the  act  of  July,  1789,  establishing  the 
department  of  foreign  affiiirs,  since  called  the  "  department  of  state,"  the 
principal  officer  of  which  was  authorized  to  appoint  a  chief  clerk,  "  who, 
whenever  the  said  principal  officer  shall  be  removed  from  office  hy  the 
president  of  the  United  States,''''  &c.  A  similar  provision,  he  said,  was 
in  the  law  organizing  the  departments  of  war  and  the  navy.  Those  three 
acts  conceded  the  power  of  the  president  to  remove  the  principal  officer. 
Mr.  Bibb  read  a  list  of  removals,  by  presidents  Washington,  Adams  and 
JclFerson.  From  the  time  of  Washington's  first  removal  to  the  present 
time,  not  an  instance  had  occurred  in  which  the  senate,  as  a  body,  had 
asserted  the  right  to  ask  the  cause  of  removal,  or  to  exercise  an  appel- 


486  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

late  or  revisory  power  over  the  president's  decision.  'The  attempt,  in 
1814,  to  ask  the  cause  of  the  removal  of  Gideon  Granger  from  the  office 
of  postmaster-general,  was  rejected  by  the  senate. 

Mr.  B.  also  cited  a  decision  of  the  supreme  court,  made  in  1803. 
"  When  an  officer  is  removable  at  the  will  of  the  executive,  the  circum- 
stance which  completes  his  appointment  is  of  no  concern,  because  the  act 
is  at  any  time  revocable.  By  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  the 
president  is  invested  with  certain  political  powers,  in  the  exercise  of 
which  he  is  to  use  his  own  discretion,  and  is  accountable  only  in  his  po- 
litical character,  and  to  his  own  conscience.  To  aid  him  in  the  perform- 
ance of  these  duties,  he  is  authorized  to  appoint  certain  officers,  who  act 
by  his  authority,  and  in  conformity  with  his  orders.  In  such  cases,  their 
acts  are  his  acts  •  *  *  *  and  there  exists  and  can  exist,  no  power  to 
control  that  discretion." 

He  also  examined  this  question  upon  the  principles  of  the  constitution. 
A  feeble  executive  produced  a  feeble  execution  of  the  laws  ;  which  was, 
in  effect,  a  bad  execution  of  the  laws.  Energy  in  the  executive  was  es- 
sential to  a  good  government.  This  had  been  provided  by  the  constitu- 
tion. In  a  government  looking  to  our  intercourse  with  foreign  nations 
to  preserve  peace ;  direct  the  energies  of  the  nation  in  war ;  spreading 
aver  such  an  extent  of  territory,  an  energetic  executive  was  more  neces- 
sary than  in  one  of  the  confederated  states.  At  the  time  of  making  the 
constitution,  there  were  but  two  tenures  of  office,  the  one  during  good 
behavior,  the  other  during  pleasure.  When,  therefore,  the  constitution 
required  the  president  to  nominate,  appoint,  and  commission  all  officers, 
and  to  commission  the  judges  during  good  behavior,  it  followed  clearly  that 
he  should  commission  no  other  officers  during  good  behavior,  but  to  hold 
during  the  pleasure  of  the  president. 

Mr.  B.  presented  several  other  considerations  to  enforce  this  interpre- 
tation. He  said  this  tenure  of  office  at  the  will  of  the  president  was 
well  adapted,  (1.)  To  preserve  due  subordination  in  the  officers  to  the  ex- 
ecutive head ;  (2.)  To  preserve  that  unity  of  purpose  and  action  necessary 
for  decision,  energy  and  dispatch ;  (3.)  To  defend  the  executive  against 
the  encroachments  of  the  coordinate  departments,  as  well  as  against 
anarchy;  (4.)  To  maintain  that  due  weight  and  influence  to  the  presi- 
dent which  was  intended  by  the  constitution,  in  giving  him  a  qualified 
negative  upon  the  proceedings  of  congress,  and  in  assigning  to  him  the 
duty  to  recommend  to  congress  such  measures  as  he  shall  judge  necessary 
and  expedient. 

The  resolution,  being  that  introduced  by  Mr.  Barton,  was  on  motion 
of  Mr.  Grundy,  laid  on  the  table.  Mr.  Holmes'  resolutions,  after  a  long 
speech  by  himself,  were,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Grundy^  indefinitely  postponed. 


FOOT  S    RESOLUTIONS    ON    THE    PUBLIC    LANDS.  487 


CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

foot's     RESOLUTIONS     ON     THE     PUBLIC     LANDS. GREAT    DEBATE    IN    THE 

SENATE. 

At  this  session,  (1830,)  occurred  what  has  been  termed,  "  the  great 
debate  in  the  senate."  The  occasion,  rather  than  the  subject  of  it,  was 
a  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Foot,  of  Connecticut,  "  That  the  committee 
on  the  public  lands  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  limit- 
ing, for  a  certain  period,  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to  such  lands  (>n\y 
as  have  heretofore  been  offered  for  sale,  and  are  subject  to  entry  at  the 
minimum  price.  And  also  whether  .the  office  of  surveyor-general  may 
not  be  abolished  without  detriment  to  the  public  interest." 

We  have  said  this  resolution  was  the  occasion  of  the  debate  ;  because, 
except  in  the  earliest  stage  of  it,  among  the  unusual  number  of  topics 
embraced  in  the  discussion,  the  resolution  itself  received  but  a  secondary 
consideration. 

The  resolution  was  offered  on  the  29th  of  December,  1829.  It  was 
taken  up  the  next  day  for  consideration,  and,  after  a  short  debate,  was 
laid  on  the  table.  The  discussion-  was  resumed  a  few  days  afterward, 
and  continued  until  the  21st  of  May.  The  object  of  the  mover  of  the 
resolution  was  to  confine  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to  those  already 
surveyed  and  brought  into  market ;  there  being  more  than  72,000,000 
acres  which  remained  unsold  at  the  minimum  price  of  $1  25  per  acre. 
The  resolution  was  opposed  on  the  ground  that  the  object  contemplated 
by  it  would  check  emigration  to  the  new  states  and  territories,  and  limit 
their  settlement.  The  eastern  states  were  charged  with  a  design  to  im- 
pede the  settlement  of  the  western  states ;  one  object  of  which  was 
alleged  to  be,  to  keep  the  people  in  the  east  to  work  in  the  manufactories. 
Hostility  on  the  part  of  the  eastern  states,  to  the  new  states  of  the  west, 
had  been  repeatedly  manifested.  The  resolution  was  vigorously  opposed 
by  the  western  senators,  Messrs.  Benton,  of  Missouri,  and  Kane  and 
Noble  of  Illinois,  especially  Mr.  Benton,  who  referred  to  the  early  policy 
of  the  government;  the  tendency  and  design  of  which  had  been  to  retard 
the  settlement  and  prosperity  of  the  new  states. 

Mr.  Foot  repelled  the  imputation  of  hostility  to  the  west ;  said,  if  the 
resolution  should  be  adopted,  he  should  move  to  add  the  words,  "  pro- 
priety of  making  donations  to  actual  settlers." 

The  senators  whose  names  are  most  familiarly  associated  with  this  de- 
bate, are  Mr.  Hayne,  of  South  Carolina,  and  Mr.  Webster,  of  Massa- 
chusetts ;  the  former  having  twice  spoken  at  length,  and  been  replied  to 


488  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

by  Mr.  "Webster.  The  second  reply  is  the  speech  which  has  so  often 
been  the  subject  of  high  encomium,  and  which  has  probably  contributed 
more  than  any  other  single  effort  to  the  fame  of  that  distinguished  orator 
and  statesman.  Besides  these,  the  other  prominent  participants  in  the^ 
debate,  were :  Messrs.  Benton,  Grundy,  Kane,  Livingston,  Rowan, 
Smitli,  of  South  Carolina,  and  Woodbury,  all,  it  is  believed,  friends  of 
the  administration,  and  all,  perhaps,  except  Mr.  Smith,  concurring 
mainly  in  the  views  of  Mr.  Hayne  on  the  subject  of  the  public  lands ; 
and  Messrs.  Barton,  Clayton,  Foot,  Holmes,  Johnson,  of  Louisiana, 
Sprague,  and  Noble,  opponents  of  the  administration ;  the  last  named 
senator,  however,  being  opposed  to  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Hayne  said,  that,  in  relation  to  the  proper  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment concerning  the  disposal  of  the  public  lands,  there  were  two  parties, 
holding  opposite  opinions.  The  one  supposed  the  policy  heretofore  pur- 
sued had  been  just  and  liberal  to  the  new  states ;  the  other,  embracing 
the  entire  west,  thought  the  government  had  treated  them  in  the  -spirit 
of  a  taskmaster — that  its  policy  had  been  illiberal  and  selfish.  It  had 
sold  out,  from  time  to  time,  certain  portions  for  the  highest  prices  that 
could  be  obtained ;  and  until  within  a  few  years,  on  long  credits.  The 
result  of  such  a  course  was  to  keep  a  country  for  a  long  time  under  a 
heavy  load  of  debt.  Other  nations,  in  planting  colonies,  had  given  free 
grants  of  land.  He  had  not  yet  formed  a  fixed  or  settled  opinion  on 
the  subject.  But  he  suggested  that,  after  the  public  debt  should  have 
been  paid,  (for  which  the  lands  were  pledged,)  it  might  be  sound  policy 
to  relinquish  them  to  the  states  in  which  they  were,  on  terms  which 
should  compensate  the  government  for  the  cost  of  the  original  purchase, 
and  for  other  expenses  incurred  on  their  account.  He  thought  the  states 
should  in  due  season  be  invested  with  the  control  of  all  the  lands  within 
their  respective  limits. 

Mr.  H.  distrusted  the  policy  of  creating  a  great  national  treasury, 
whether  to  be  derived  from  the  public  lands  or  from  any  other  source, 
and  of  distributing  the  excess  among  the  states.  It  would  be  a  fund  for 
corruption — fatal  to  the  duration  of  our  institutions,  and  to  the  sover- 
eignty and  independence  of  the  states.  He  believed  the  very  life  of  our 
system  was  the  independence  of  the  states,  and  no  evil  was  more  to  be 
deprecated,  than  the  consolidation  of  the  government. 

Mr.  Webster  maintained  that  the  policy  of  the  government  had  been 
liberal  to  the  new  states.  He  considered  the  analogy  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Hayne  to  be  unjust ;  the  cases  were  not  similar.  The  North  American 
colonists  either  fled  from  Europe  to  avoid  persecution,  or  came  hither  at 
their  own  charges,  as  private  adventurers.  The  western  lands  and  the 
protection  of  the  settlers  against  the  Indians,  had  led  to  the  expenditure 


GREAT  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  4S9 

of  both  blood  and  treasure.  The  extinguishment  of  the  Indian  title  had 
cost  many  millions.  Nothing  had  been  spared  which  a  just  sense  of  their 
necessities  required.  He  adverted  to  the  growth  and  prosperity  of  these 
states  since  the  Indians  were  conquered  by  Wayne,  which  was  the  result 
of  the  care  and  protection  of  the  government.  He  objected  to  throwing 
great  portions  of  the  lands,  at  low  prices,  into  the  hands  of  private  spec- 
ulation. 

In  replying  to  the  remark  of  Mr.  Hayne,  that  he  wanted  no  perma- 
nent sources  of  income — that  a  fixed  revenue  only  consolidated  the  gov- 
ernment and  corrupted  the  people — Mr,  W.  said,  he  was  aware  such  sen- 
timents were  elsewhere  held  ;  but  he  had  not  expected  to  hear  them  ut- 
tered there.  "  Consolidation  ! — that  perpetual  cry  of  terror  and  delu- 
sion— consolidation  !  When  gentlemen  speak  of  the  effects  of  a  common 
fund  as  having  a  tendency  to  consolidation,  what  do  they  mean  ?  Do 
they  mean,  or  can  they  mean,  any  thing  more  than  that  the  union  of  the 
states  will  be  strengthened  by  whatever  furnishes  inducements  to  the 
people  of  the  states  to  hold  together  ?  This  is  the  sense  in  which  the 
framers  of  the  constitution  use  the  word  consolidation,  and  in  which 
sense  I  adopt  and  cherish  it.  They  tell  us  in  the  letter  submitting  the 
constitution  to  the  consideration  of  the  country,  that,  '  in  all  our  delib- 
erations on  this  subject,  we  kept  steadily  in  our  view  that  which  appears 
to  us  the  greatjcst  interest  of  every  true  American — the  consolidation  of 
our  union — in  which  is  involved  our  prosperity,  liberty,  safety ;  perhaps 
our  national  existence.'  *  *  *  This,  sir,  is  Gen.  Washington's  con- 
solidation.    This  is  the  true  constitutional  consolidation." 

Mr.  W.  defended  the  East  against  the  charge  of  hostility  to  the  West. 
The  tariff  had  been  mentioned  as  an  instance  of  selfish  policy,  and 
designed  to  prevent  western  emigration.  He  repelled  the  charge,  and 
the  cause  assigned  for  it.  New  England  was  not  the  author  of  the  tariff. 
The  tarifi'  of  1816  was  more  a  southern  than  an  eastern  measure.  And 
in  1824,  there  were,  in  each  of  a  majority  of  the  western  states,  and  CTen 
in  Virginia,  more  votes  in  favor  of  the  tariff  of  that  year,  than  in  Mas- 
sachusetts.    It  had  been  forced  upon  New  England. 

From  the  time  the  cessions  of  the  lands  were  made  to  congress,  no 
portion  of  the  country  had  acted  with  more  liberality  or  intelligence  on 
the  subject  of  the  western  lands  than  New  England.  Provision  was  to 
be  made  for  the  government  of  the  country  and  for  disposing  of  the  ter- 
ritory. The  soil  must  be  granted  and  settled.  How  was  it  to  be  done  ? 
Two  systems  presented  themselves ;  the  one  a  northern  and  the  other 
a  southern  mode  of  conducting  the  sales.  The  northern  was  adopted ;  it 
was  that  now  in  successful  operation  in  the  new  states  north-west  of  the 
Ohio.     That  which  was  rejected  was  the  system  of  warrants,  surveys, 


490  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Qntry  and  location,  which  prevailed  south  of  the  Ohio,  and  had  shingled 
over  the  country  with  conflicting  titles  and  claims,  and  led  lO  speculation 
and  litigation.  The  former  was  the  New  England  system — that  of  sur- 
veying lands  before  issuing  title  papers,  and  of  inserting  accurate  descrip- 
tions of  metes  and  bounds.  At  the  foundation  of  the  constitution  of 
these  new  states,  was  the  ordinance  of  1787,  drawn  up  by  Nathan  Dane, 
of  Massachusetts.  It  had  impressed  upon  the  soil  an  incapacity  to  bear 
up  any  other  than  free  men.  Mr.  W.  suggested  this  as  the  cause  that  had 
given  to  these  states  a  more  rapid  growth  and  prosperity  than  those  south 
of  the  Ohio.  And  this  great  measure,  he  said,  had  been  carried  by  the 
north,  and  by  the  north  alone.  Individuals  elsewhere  had  favored  it ; 
but  as  a  measure,  it  was  supported  entirely  by  northern  votes.  The 
Cumberland  road  and  other  western  improvements  had  uniformly  received 
the  votes  of  New  England. 

In  vindication  of  his  own  course,  he  read  a  few  extracts  from  &  debate 
in  the  house  of  representatives,  in  1825,  on  the  subject  of  the  western 
road  ;  Mr.  W.  being  then  a  member  of  that  body.  A  distinguished  mem- 
ber from  the  south  (Mr.  M'Duffie)  had  said  in  that  debate,  that  emigra- 
tion to  the  west  needed  no  stimulus,  but  rather  a  check.  Every  induce- 
ment had  been  held  out  to  the  people  to  settle  in  the  west,  until  the  east- 
ern population  had  become  sparse.  If  any  object  was  worthy  the  atten- 
tion of  the  government,  it  was  a  plan  which  should  limit  the  sale  of  the 
public  lands.  To  which  he  (Mr.  W.)  had  replied,  that  it  was  not  his  wish 
so  to  hasten  the  sales  of  the  lands  as  to  throw  them  into  the  hands  of 
purchasers  who  would  sell  again ;  but  he  could  not  concur  with  the  gen- 
tleman from  South  Carolina,  in  wishing  to  restrain  the  laboring  classes 
in  the  eastern  states  from  going  to  any  part  of  our  territory.  He  was  in 
favor  of  letting  population  take  its  own  course.  If  any  of  his  constitu- 
ents wished  to  settle  on  the  Kansas,  or  the  Arkansas,  let  them  go,  and 
be  happier,  if  they  could.  Mr.  W.  said  he  had  read  these  extracts  to 
vindicate  his  state  from  unfounded  charges  and  imputations  on  her  public 
character  and  conduct. 

After  this  stage  of  the  discussion,  many  foreign  subjects  were  intro- 
duced into  the  debate,  which  was  continued  until  the  2d  of  April.  Hav- 
ing been  permitted  to  slumber  until  near  the  close  of  the  session,  it  was 
revived  the  20th  of  May,  and  finally  brought  to  a  close  the  next  day,  with- 
out any  decisive  action  upon  the  resolution.  Among  the  incidental  and 
irrelevant  topics  drawn  into  the  debate,  were  slavery,  state  rights  and 
nullification,  the  judicial  power  of  the  union.  New  England  federalism, 
&c.  It  abounded  with  facts  and  illustrations  relating  to  the  government, 
which  impart  to  it  not  a  little  interest  and  value  as  a  political  history. 
But  the  most  prominent  subject  was  that  of  the  relative  powers  of  the 


GREAT  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  491 

state  and  federal  governments,  in  the  discussion  of  which  was  asserted 
the  constitutional  right  of  a  state  to  disobey  any  law  which  the  state 
authorities  may  deem  unconstitutional — the  right  of  nullification. 

The  principal  speakers  in  this  debate,  which  was  almost  strictly  of  a 
party  character  were  Messrs.  Benton,  Hayne,  Kane,  Rowan,  Grundy, 
Livingston,  and  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  supporters  of  the  administra- 
tion ;  and  Messrs.  Webster,  Sprague,  Holmes,  Noble,  Foot,  Clayton, 
Johnson,  of  Louisiana,  and  Robbins,  of  the  opposition.  The  former  were 
opposed  to  the  resolution,  except  Mr.  Smith,  who,  on  this  subject,  dis- 
sented from  his  colleague,  Mr.  Hayne ;  the  latter,  it  is  believed,  Mr. 
Noble  excepted,  were  all  in  favor  of  the  inquiry  proposed  in  the  resolu- 
tion. Although  Messrs.  Hayne  and  Webster  are  generally  regarded  as 
the  leading  combatants  in  this  celebrated  controversy,  Mr.  Benton  occu- 
pied a  much  greater  portion  of  time  than  any  other  senator. 

Mr.  Webster,  at  the  close  of  the  speech  above  noticed,  was  imme- 
diately followed  by  Mr.  Benton  in  the  commencement  of  a  speech  which 
was  continued  for  an  hour  the  next  day,  (January  21,)  when  he  yielded 
the  floor  to  Mr.  Hayne,  and  did  not  resume  it  until  after  the  discussion 
between  those  two  gentlemen  was  over.  Necessity  forbids  our  giving 
even  th(Anost  condensed  sketch  of  the  remarks  of  speakers  on  the  various 
topics  embraced  in  this  very  discursive  debate — or  party  combat,  as  it 
may  be  appropriately  called.  Many  important  questions,  however,  were 
discussed,  among  which  the  most  prominent  was  that  of  the  constitutional 
powers  of  the  national  and  state  governments,  in  other  words,  the  natv.re 
of  the  union. 

Mr.  Hayne  claimed  for  a  state  the  right  not  only  to  disregard  a  law 
of  congress  which  it  may  deem  unconstitutional,  but  to  determine  for 
itself,  the  unconstitutionality  of  an  act,  as  well  as  the  mode  and  meas- 
ure of  redress ;  and  founded  this  claim  upon  the  authority  of  the  Vir- 
ginia and  Kentucky  resolutions  of  1798  and  1799.  Mr.  Webster,  on  the 
other  hand,  contended  for  some  power  in  the  general  government  to 
decide  ultimately  upon  the  constitutionality  of  laws ;  and  that  the  doc- 
trine that  each  state  might  at  discretion  violate  any  law  which  her  own 
authorities  should  pronounce  unconstitutional,  would,  if  carried  into 
practice,  be  fatal  to  the  union. 

Mr.  Hayne,  in  defense  of  his  doctrine,  said :  "  The  senator  from  Mas- 
sachusetts, in  denouncing  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  the  South  Carolina 
doctrine,  has  attempted  to  throw  ridicule  upon  the  idea  that  a  state  has 
any  constitutional  remedy,  by  the  exercise  of  its  sovereign  authority, 
against  a  *  gross,  palpable,  and  deliberate  violation  of  the  constitution.' 
He  calls  it  an  idle  or  a  ridiculous  notion,  or  something  to  that  effect,  and 
added,  it  would  make  the  union  ^  a  mere  rope  of  sand.'     Now,  sir,  as 


4^  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN.  y 

the  gentleman  has  not  condescended  to  enter  into  any  examination  of  the 
question,  and  has  been  satisfied  with  throwing  the  weight  of  his  author- 
ity into  the  scale,  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  do  more  than  to  throw 
into  the  opposite- scale  the  authority  on  which  South  Carolina  relies,  and 
there,  for  the  present,  I  am  willing  to  leave  the  controversy.  The  South 
Carolina  doctrine,  that  is  to  say,  the  doctrine  contained  in  an  exposition 
reported  by  a  committee  of  the  legislature  in  December,  1828,  and  pub- 
lished by  their  authority,  is  the  good  old  republican  doctrine  of  '98  ;  the 
doctrine  of  the  celebrated  '  Virginia  resolutions'  of  that  year,  and  of 
*  Madison's  report,'  of  '99.  It  will  be  recollected  that  the  legislature  of 
Virginia,  in  December,  '98,  took  into  consideration  the  alien  and  sedition 
laws,  then  considered  by  all  republicans  as  a  gross  violation  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  and  on  that  day  passed  among  others,  the 
following  resolution  : 

"  The  general  assembly  doth  explicitly  and  peremptorily  declare, 
that  it  views  the  powers  of  the  federal  government,  as  resulting  from  the 
compact  to  which  the  states  are  parties,  as  limited  by  the  plain  sense  and 
intention  of  the  instrument  constituting  that  compact,  as  no  farther  valid 
than  they  are  authorized  by  the  grants  enumerated  in  that  compact ;  and 
that,  in  case  of  a  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercised  of  other 
powers  not  granted  by  the  said  compact,  the  states  who  are  parties  thereto 
have  the  right,  and  are  in  duty  bound,  to  interpose  for  arresting  the  pro- 
gress of  the  evil,  and  for  maintaining  within  their  respective  limits,  the 
authorities,  rights,  and  liberties  appertaining  to  them.  " 

Mr.  H.  also  quoted  from  Mr.  Madison's  report  the  following ;  "  It 
appears  to  your  committee  to  be  a  plain  principle,  founded  on  commo'n 
sense,  illustrated  by  common  practice,  and  essential  to  the  nature  of 
compacts,  that,  when  resort  can  Be  had  to  no  tribunal  superior  to  the 
authority  of  the  parties,  the  parties  themselves  must  be  the  rightful 
judges,  in  the  last  resort,  whether  the  bargain  made  has  been  pursued 
or  violated.  The  constitution  of  the  United  States  was  formed  by  the 
sanction  of  the  states,  given  by  each  in  its  sovereign  capacity.  It  adds 
to  the  stability  and  dignity,  as  well  as  to  the  authority  of  the  constitu- 
tion, that  it  rests  on  this  legitimate  and  solid  foundation.  The  states, 
then,  being  the  parties  to  the  constitutional  compact,  and  in  their  sov- 
ereign capacity,  it  follows,  of  necessity,  that  there  can  be  no  tribunal, 
above  their  authority,  to  decide,  in  the  last  resort,  whether  the  compact 
made  by  them  be  violated ;  and,  consequently,  that,  as  the  parties  to  it, 
they  must  themselves  decide,  in  the  last  resort,  such  questions  as  may 
be  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  require  their  interposition." 

From  the  Kentucky  resolutions,  responding  to  those  of  Virginia,  and 
penned  by  Mr.   Jefferson,  Mr.  H.  quoted  the  following  declaration  : — 


GREAT    DEBATE    IN    THE    SENATE.  493 

"  That  the  government  created  by  this  compact  was  not  made  the  ex- 
clusive or  final  judge  of  the  extent  of  the  powers  delegated  to  itself, 
since  that  would  have  made  its  discretion,  and  not  the  constitution,  the 
measure  of  its  powers;  but  that,  as  in  all  other  cases  of  compact  among 
parties  having  no  common  judge,  each  party  has  an  equal  right  to  judge 
for  itself,  as  well  of  infractions,  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress." 

The  legislature  of  Kentucky,"  in  1799,  reaffirmed  their  resolutions  of 
the  preceding  year.  From  their  proceedings,  Mr.  H.  read,  in  support 
of  his  theory,  the  following  declarations  :  "  That  the  principle  and  con- 
struction contended  for  by  several  of  the  state  legislatures,  that  the 
general  government  is  the  exclusive  judge  of  the  extent  of  the  powers 
delegated  to  it,  stop  nothing  short  of  despotism  ;  since  the  discretion  of 
those  who  administer  the  government,  and  not  the  constitution,  would  be 
the  measure  of  their  powers.  That  the  several  states  who  formed  that 
instrument,  being  sovereign  and  independent,  have  the  unquestionable 
right  to  judge  of  its  infraction ;  and,  that  a  nullification,  by  those  sov- 
ereignties, of  all  unauthorized  acts,  done  under  the  color  of  that  instru- 
ment, is  the  rightful  remedy." 

Mr.  Webster  said  he  had  much  respect  for  the  constitutional  opinions 
of  Mr.  Madison ;  but  possibly  a  wrong  construction  might  have  been 
given  to  the  resolution  to  which  Mr.  Madison  had  given  his  sanction. 
That  resolution  declared,  that,  in  case  of  the  dangerous  exercise  of 
powers  not  granted  to  the  general  government,  the  states  might  inter- 
pose to  arrest  the  progress  of  the  evil.  But  how  interpose  ?  Did  it 
mean  no  more  than  that  the  people,  in  any  mode  of  assembling,  might 
resist  usurpation  ?  No  one  would  deny  this.  Nor  would  it  be  denied, 
that  the  people  might,  if  they  chose,  throw  off  any  government  when  it 
became  oppressive  and  intolerable,  and  erect  a  better  one.  This  was 
the  right  of  revolution.  But  what  the  gentleman  contended  for,  was, 
that  it  was  constitutional  for  a  state,  in  form  of  )aw,  in  virtue  of  its  sov- 
ereign capacity,  to  interrupt  the.  administration  of  the  constitution  it- 
self, in  the  hands  of  those  who  were  chosen  and  sworn  to  administer  it. 
[Appendix,  Note  E]. 

Mr.  W.  admitted  that  unconstitutional  laws  were  not  binding.  But 
the  great  question  was,  whose  prerogative  was  it  to  decide  whether  a 
law  was  constitutional  or  not  ?  The  proposition,  that  a  state  has  a  con- 
stitutional right  to  annul  a  law  supposed  to  be  unconstitutional,  he  de- 
nied. Under  the  constitution,  there  was  no  mode  in  which  a  state  gov- 
ernment, as  a  member  of  the  union,  could  interfere,  and  stop  the  pro- 
gress of  the  general  government,  by  force  of  her  own  laws,  under  any 
circumstances  whatever. 

This  led  him  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  thegovermaect,  and  the  source 


494  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  its  power.  Was  it  the  creature  of  the  state  legislatures,  or  the  crea- 
ture of  the  people  ?  "  The  doctrine  for  which  the  gentleman  contends," 
said  Mr.  Webster,  ''  leads  him  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining,  not  only 
that  the  general  government  is  the  creature  of  the  states,  but  that 
it  is  the  creature  of  each  of  the  states,  severally ;  so  that  each 
may  assert  the  power,  for  itself,  of  determining  whether  it  acts 
within  the  limits  of  its  authority.  It  is  the  servant  of  four-and- 
twenty  masters,  of  different  wills  and  different  purposes,  and  yet 
bound  to  obey  all.  This  absurdity  arises  from  a  misconception  as 
to  the  origin  of  this  government  in  its  true  character.  It  is  the  people's 
constitution,  the  people's  government ;  made  for  the  people ;  made  by 
the  people ;  and  answerable  to  the  people.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  have  declared  that  this  constitution  shall  be  the  supreme-  law. 
The  states  are  sovereign  so  far  as  their  sovereignty  is  not  affected  by 
this  supreme  law.  But  the  state  legislatures,  as  political  bodies,  how- 
ever sovereign,  are  yet  not  sovereign  over  the  people.  So  far  as  the 
people  have  given  power  to  the  general  government,  so  far  the  grant  is 
good  ;  and  the  government  holds  of  the  people,  and  not  of  the  state  gov- 
ernments. The  general  government  and  the  state  governments  derive 
their  authority  from  the  same  source.  Neither  can,  in  relation  to  the 
other,  be  called  primary;  though  one  is  definite  and  restricted,  and  the 
other  general  and  residuary.  The  national  government  possesses  those 
powers  conferred  on  it  by  the  people;  the  rest  belongs  to  the  states  and 
the  people." 

But  in  erecting  this  government  and  giving  it  a  constitution  in  which 
they  have  defined  its  powers,  the  people,  he  said,  had  done  but  half  their 
work.  No  definition  could  be  so  clear  as  to  avoid  possibility  of  doubt. 
Who  then  should  construe  this  grant  of  the  people  ?  With  whom  did 
they  repose  the  ultimate  right  of  deciding  on  the  powers  of  the  govern- 
ment ?  They  had  left  it  with  the  government  itself,  in  its  appropriate 
branches.  Their  design  was  to  establish  a  government  that  should  not 
be  obliged  to  act  through  state  agency,  or  depend  on  state  opinion  and 
state  discretion.  The  constitution,  and  the  laws  made  under  it,  are  de- 
clared to  be  supreme;  and  it  is  declared  that  "the judicial  power  shall 
extend  to  all  cases  arising  under  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States."  These  two  provisions  covered  the  whole  ground.  They  were 
the  Jfey-stone  of  the  arch.  With  these  it  was  a  constitution  ;  without 
them,  it  was  a  confederacy.  In  pursuance  of  these  clear  and  express 
provisions,  congress  established,  at  its  very  first  session,  in  the  judicial 
act,  a  mode  for  carrying  them  into  full  effect,  and  for  bringing  all  ques- 
tions of  constitutional  power  to  i\iQ  final  decision  of  the  supreme  court. 
It  then  became  a  government ;  it  then  had  the  means  of  self-protection. 


GREAT  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  495 

Mr.  Hayne  again  replied  to  Mr.  "Webster,  and  reaffirmed  tl.e  doctrine 
of  his  former  speech,  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Madison's  report,  "  that 
where  resort  can  be  had  to  no  common  superior,  the  parties  to  the  com- 
pact must  themselves  be  the  rightful  judges,"  &c.  ;  and  he  denied  the 
doctrine  of  Mr.  Webster,  that  the  federal  government  had  "  the  power 
of  deciding  ultimately  and  conclusively  upon  the  extent  of  its  own  au- 
thority." The  states  in  forming  the  compact,  had  not  surrendered  their 
sovereignty.  A  compact  between  two,  with  a  right  reserved  to  one  to 
expound  the  instrument  according  to  his  own  pleasure,  was  no  compact 
at  all,  but  an  absolute  surrender  of  the  whole  subject  matter  to  the 
arbitrary  discretion  of  the  party  who  was  constituted  the  judge.  The 
states  being  parties  to  the  compact  in  their  capacity  as  states,  and  being 
soTereign  and  equal,  having  no  common  superior,  there  could  be  no 
tribunal  above  their  authority  to  decide  whether  the  compact  had  been 
violated;  and  the  federal  government  was  bound  to  acquiesce  in  the 
solemn  decision  of  a  state  thus  acting  in  its  sovereign  capacity.  He 
went  into  a  long  argument  attempting  to  prove  that  the  supreme  court 
had  not  the  power  to  decide  in  such  cases,  and  said,  if  congress  should 
attempt  to  enforce  an  unconstitutional  law,  they  would  put  themselves 
clearly  in  the  wrong ;  and  the  state  would  have  the  right  to  exert  its 
protecting  power. 

Mr.  Webster,  in  a  very  brief  reply,  stated  Mr.  Hayne's  propositions 
to  be  :  (1.)  That  the  constitution  is  a  compact  between  the  states  ;  (2.) 
That  a  compact  between  two,  with  authority  reserved  to  one  to  inter- 
pret its  terms,  would  be  a  surrender  to  that  one  of  all  power  whatever ; 
and  (3.)  As  an  inference  from  these  propositions,  that  the  general  gov- 
ernment does  not  possess  the  authority  to  construe  its  own  powers. 

"  Now,  sir,"  said  Mr.  W.,  "who  does  not  see,  without  exposition  or 
detection,  the  utter  confusion  of  ideas  involved  in  this  so  elaborate  and 
systematic  argument  ?  The  constitution,  it  is  said,  is  a  compact  between 
states :  the  states,  then,  and  the  states  only,  are  parties  to  the  compact. 
How  comes  the  general  government  itself  a  party  ?  Upon  the  honor- 
able gentleman's  hypothesis,  the  general  government  is  the  result  of  the 
compact,  the  creature  of  the  compact,  not  one  of  the  parties  to  it.  Yet 
the  argument,  as  he  has  now  stated  it,  makes  the  government  itself  one 
of  its  own  creators.  It  makes  it  a  party  to  that  compact  to  which  it 
owes  its  own  existence.  For  the  purpose  of  erecting  the  constitution  on 
the  basis  of  a  compact,  the  gentleman  considers  the  states  as  parties  to 
that  compact;  but  as  soon  as  his  compact  is  made,  then  he  chooses  to 
consider  the  general  government,  which  is  the  offspring  of  that  compact, 
not  as  its  offspring,  but  one  of  its  parties  ;  and  so,  being  a  party,  has 
not  the  power  of  judging  on  the  terms  of  compact.  Pray,  sir,  in  what 
school  is  such  reasoning  taught  ?     *     *     * 


496  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

"  The  gentleman  says,  if  there  be  such  a  power  of  final  decision  in 
the  general  government,  he  asks  for  the  grant  of  that  power.  Well,  sir, 
I  show  him  the  grant — I  turn  him  to  the  very  words — I  show  him  that 
the  laws  of  congress  are  made  supreme;  and  that  the  judicial  power  ex- 
tends, by  express  words,  to  the  interpretation  of  these  laws.  Instead 
of  answering  this,  he  retreats  into  the  general  reflection,  that  it  must 
result,  from  the  nature  of  things,  that  the  states  being  parties,  must 
judge  for  themselves." 

Mr.  W.  argued  farther,  that,  even  supposing  the  constitution  to  be  a 
compact  between  the  states,  that  doctrine  was  not  maintainable ;  because, 
first,  the  general  government  was  not  a  party  to  the  compact,  but  a 
government  established  by  it,  and  vested  by  it  with  the  powers  of  trying 
and  deciding  doubtful  questions  ;  and,  secondly,  if  the  constitution  were 
regarded  as  a  compact,  not  one  state  only,  but  all  the  states,  were  parties 
to  it ;  and  one  alone  could  have  no  right  to  fix  upon  it  her  own  peculiar 
construction.  Yet  the  doctrine  was,  that  Carolina  alone  might  construe 
and  interpret  that  compact  which  equally  bound  all,  and  gave  equal 
rights  to  all.  But  the  constitution,  he  said,  was  not  a  compact  between 
state  governments ;  the  constitution  itself  declaring,  that  it  was  ordained 
and  established  by  "  the  people  of  the  United  States."  It  did  not  even 
say  that  it  was  established  by  the  people  of  the  several  states ;  but  by 
the  people  of  the  United  States  in  the  aggregate.  The  confederation 
was  strictly  a  compact  between  the  states,  as  states;  but  that  was 
found  insufficient,  and  the  people,  not  satisfied  with  it,  had  established, 
not  a  confederacy,  not  a  league,  not  a  compact  between  states,  but  a 
general  government,  directly  responsible  to  the  people,  and  divided  into 
branches  with  prescribed  liniits  of  power,  and  prescribed  duties. 

Mr.  Benton  thought  the  power  claimed  by  Mr.  Webster  for  the 
supreme  court  was  no  less  than  a  despotic  power.  That  court  was 
called  supreme  in  reference  to  inferior  courts — the  district  and  circuit 
courts— *-and  not  in  reference  to  the  states  of  the  union.  A  power  to 
decide  on  the  federal  constitutionality  of  state  laws,  and  to  bind  the 
states  by  the  decision,  was  a  power  to  govern  the  states. 

Mr.  Rowan,  of  Kentucky,  protested  against  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Web- 
ster, which  denied  that  the  constitution  was  a  compact  formed  by  the 
states,  but  which  asserted  that  it  was  a  government  formed  by  the 
people,  and  for  the  very  •J)urpo8e,  among  others,  of  imposing  certain 
salutary  restraints  on  state  sovereignties.  And  the  idea  that  the  people 
had  conferred  upon  the  supreme  court  such  a  power,  was  a  fallacy.  He 
believed  these  doctrines  struck  at  the  root  of  all  our  free  institutions, 
and  led  directly  to  a  consolidation  of  the  government.  They  had  been 
inferred  from  the  tenor  of  the  first  message  of  the  late  president  Adams 


GREAT   DEBATE    IN    THE   SENATE.  49l7 

to  congress.  Now,  the  explicit  avowal  of  them  by  the  honorable  sena- 
tor removed  all  doubt  from  the  subject.  We  could  no  longer  doubt  as 
to  the  political  faith  of  Mr.  Adams.  His  most  zealous  and  distin- 
guished apostle  had  avowed  it.  "  The  two  parties,"  said  Mr.  R.,  "  are 
now  clearly  distinguishable  by  their  opposite  political  tenets ;  the  one 
headed  by  our  illustrious  chief  magistrate,  who  is  the  friend  and  advo- 
cate of  the  rights  of  the  states ;  the  other  party  is  now  headed  by  the 
senator  from  Massachusetts."  Mr.  R.  undertook,  by  a  long  and  able 
argument,  to  disprove  these  doctrines,  and  to  show  that  the  union  had 
not  been  formed  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  the  aggregate, 
but  in  the  capacity  of  states ;  and  the  union  was  one  of  state  sovereign- 
ties. The  only  security  to  the  liberties  of  the  people  was  in  the  pro- 
tecting power  of  the  sovereignty  of  their  respective  states ;  and  when 
that  sovereignty  was  subjected  to  the  will  of  the  supreme  court,  the 
people  were  subjected  to  the  same  tribunal ;  and  after  all  their  vigi- 
lance and  caution,  in  guarding  against  oppression  from  their  rulers,  they 
were,  by  this  doctrine,  to  be  subjected  to  the  rule  of  a  judicial  aristo- 
cracy, whose  tenure  of  power  was  for  life,  and  irresponsible.  He  held 
that  a  state  being  sovereign,  and  owing  allegiance  to  no  higher  power,  it 
could  not,  by  resisting  a  law  of  congress,  commit  treason  or  rebellion. 

After  having  spoken  of  the  means  of  peaceable  resistance,  on  the  part 
of  a  state  to  an  unconstitutional  law,  by  nullifying  resolutions,  and  other 
expressions  of  the  public  will,  as  having  a  rebuking  effect  of  sufficient 
force  to  secure  redress,  he  says :  "  But  if  these  results  should  not  fol- 
low, you  ask  me,  what  next  ?  Must  the  state  forbear  to  resist  the 
aggression  upon  her  sovereignty,  and  submit  to  be  shorn  of  it  alto- 
gether ?  I  answer,  no,  sir,  no  ;  that  she  must  maintain  her  sovereignty 
by  every  means  within  her  power.  She  is  good  for  nothing,  even  worse 
than  good  for  nothing,  without  it.  This,  you  will  tell  me,  must  lead  to 
civil  war — to  war  between  the  general  government  and  the  resisting 
state.  I  answer,  not  at  all,  unless  the  general  government  shall  choose 
to  consecrate  its  usurpations  by  the  blood  of  those  it  shall  have 
attempted  to  oppress.  And  if  the  states  shall  be  led,  by  apprehen 
sions  of  that  kind,  to  submit  to  encroachments  upon  their  sovereignties, 
they  will  most  certainly  not  remain  sovereign  long.  Fear  is  a  bad 
counselor,  of  even  an  individual ;  it  should  never  be  consulted  by  a 
sovereign  state." 

Several  questions  here  naturally  suggest  themselves  to  the  reader.  The 
Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions,  among  whose  authors  and  exponents 
were  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr.  Madison,  were  in  this  debate  adduced  as 
authority  for  nullification,  and  that,  too,  by  force,  if  necessary.  If,  as 
these  resolutions  declare,  a  state,  in  case  of  a  supposed  unconstitutional 

32 


498  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

act  of  congress,  lias  ''  a  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  infractions  as 
of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress ;"  and  if  redress  can  not  be  had  in 
any  other  way,  it  may  be  asked,  Do  these  resolutions  authorize  a  for- 
cible resistance  ?  Was  nullification  a  distinctive  doctrine  of  the  Jack- 
son party  ?  Concerning  the  former  question  it  may  be  said,  that  a 
strict  construction  of  those  resolutions  would  seem  to  justify  a  resort 
to  force  to  obtain  redress.  Such  construction,  however,  is  at  the  pres- 
ent day  rejected  by  a  majority  of  those  who  approve  the  resolutions. 
Force,  in  the  last  resort,  was  plainly  asserted  by  Messrs.  Hayne  and 
Rowan  to  be  a  constitutional  mode  of  resistance ;  and  we  are  not  aware 
that  any  administration  senator  who  succeeded  them  in  the  debate, 
except  Mr.  Livingston,  admitted  the  existence  of  any  authority  in  the 
general  government  to  bind  a  state  by  its  decision.  Nor  are  we  aware 
that  any  senator  disclaimed  the  avowal  of  Mr.  Rowan,  that  these  were 
the  distinctive  doctrines  of  the  administration  party.  This  avowal,  and 
the  tacit  consent  which  it  received  in  the  senate,  and  the  prompt  response 
to  it  of  leading  men  and  presses  of  the  administration  party,  who  hailed 
the  views  of  state  rights  expressed  by  Mr.  Hayne  as  "  the  true  demo- 
cratic doctrine,"  for  the  defense  of  which  "  the  democrats  of  the  union 
owed  him  a  debt  of  gratitude  ;"  indicated  u  recognition  of  them  as  party 
doctrines. 

It  is  true,  however,  that,  although  the  theory  of  Mr.  Hayne  seems  to 
have  been  maintained  by  nearly  all  the  administration  senators  who 
argued  this  point,  and  the  existence  of  a  power  in  the  general  govern- 
ment to  decide  upon  the  binding  force  of  a  law  of  congress  to  have  been 
denied;  all  of  them  didjiot  assert  the  right  of  violent  resistaitce ;  as  will 
appear  from  the  speeches  of  those  who  followed  in  debate. 

Mr.  Grundy  denied  the  right  of  the  legislature  of  a  state  to  declare 
the  nullity  of  a  law,  and  to  prevent  its  execution ;  but  gave  it  to  a  con- 
vention chosen  by  the  people. 

Mr.  Woodbury  did  not  coincide  in  the  assertion  of  a  constitutional 
right  of  preventing  the  execution  of  a  law  believed  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional ;  the  people  were  supreme,  and  could  and  would,  in  their  omnipo- 
tence, and  for  sufficient  cause,  "  always  apply  a  most  sovereign  remedy," 
— evidently  meaning  force — if  other  means  of  redress  should  fail. 

Mr.  Livingston,  an  administration  senator,  in  his  views  of  the  nature 
of  the  constitution,  and  of  the  powers  and  rights  of  the  parties  to  it, 
dissented  in  a  measure  from  all  who  had  preceded  him.  He  thought  it 
dangerous,  on  the  one  hand,  to  establish  a  constitutional  veto  in  each  of 
the  states,  upon  any  act  of  the  whole,  to  be  exercised  whenever  the  leg- 
islature may  suppose  such  act  unconstitutional ;  and  on  the  other,  it 
was  dangerous  to  the  state  governments,  to  consider  that  of  the  United 


GREAT  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  499 

States  entirely  popular,  and  to  deny  the  existence  of  a  compact.  While 
he  held  that  the  general  government  could  not  have  been  brought  into 
being  without  a  compact,  he  admitted  that  there  were  in  it  characteris- 
tics of  a  popular  kind — marks  of  a  more  intimate  union  and  amalgamation 
of  the  interests  of  the  citizens  of  the  different  states.  The  entire  sove- 
reignty of  the  states,  individually,  had  not  been  retained.  The  gov- 
ernment, also,  for  the  most  part,  (except  in  the  election  of  senator^, 
representatives,  president,  and  some  other  officers,)  acted  directly  upon 
individuals,  and  not  through  the  medium  of  state  authorities.  This  was 
an  essential  character  of  a  popular  government.  He  placed  little 
reliance,  however,  on  the  argument,  that  the  preamble  to  the  constitu- 
tion begins  with  the  words,  "  We  the  people."  It  only  proved  that  the 
people  of  the  several  states  had  been  consulted,  and  had  given  their 
consent  to  the  instrument.  The  people  of  each  state  had  been  consulted, 
to  know  whether  that  state  would  form  a  part  of  the  United  States, 
under  the  constitution ;  and  to  that  they  had  given  their  assent,  simply 
as  citizens  of  that  state.     [Note  F.] 

The  government,  then,  Mr.  L.  said,  was  neither  a  federative  compact 
which  left  to  all  the  parties  their  full  sovereignty,  nor  such  a  consolidated 
popular  government  as  deprived  them  of  the  whole  of  that  sovereign 
power.  It  was  a  compact  by  which  the  people  of  each  state  had  con- 
eented  to  the  transfer  of  certain  powers  from  their  state  legislature  to 
the  general  government.  As  to  all  these  attributes  of  sovereignty, 
which  by  the  federal  compact  were  so  transferred,  the  general  govern- 
ment was  supreme ;  the  states  had  abandoned,  and  could  never  reclaim 
them.     All  other  sovereign  powers  were  retained  by  the  states. 

Mr.  L.  then  considered  the  powers  of  the  supreme  court,  in  regard  to 
which  he  took  substantially  the  same  view  as  Mr.  Webster.  He  said 
the  states  had  not  only  given  certain  powers  to  the  general  government, 
but  had  expressly  giveu  also  the  right  of  enforcing  obedience  to  the 
exercise  of  those  powers.  They  had  declared  the  constitution,  and  laws 
made  in  pursuance  of  it,  to  be  supreme ;  and  they  had  also  expressly 
consented,  that  the  judiciary  of  the  United  States  should  have  cognizance 
of  all  cases  coming  under  those  laws.  As  the  constitution  is  paramount 
to  a  law  of  the  United  States,  and  as  both  are  paramount  to  a  law  of  the 
state,  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  must,  of  necessity,  in  a 
disputed  case  legally  before  it,  determine  the  question  ;  and  its  decision 
must  be  final ;  the  states  must  be  bound  ;  for  in  this  compact  they  had 
agreed  that  their  citizens  should  be  so  bound. 

This  question  was  argued  at  length  by  Mr.  L.,  with  great  clearness 
and  ability ;  and  we  regret  that  we  can  not  afford  space  for  a  greater 
portion  of  his  speech.     He  controverted  that  interpretation  of  the  Vir- 


500  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  which  authorized  a  state  to  resist  the 
execution  of  a  law  of  congress,  except  in  a  case  of  intolerable  and 
unconstitutional  oppression,  which  was  not  a  right  under  the  constitution, 
but  the  undisputed  right  of  revolution. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  S.  C,  dissented  from  the  views  of  his  colleague  and 
other  administration  senators  in  relation  to  the  disposition  of  the  public 
lands ;  but  concurred  with  them  generally  on  the  subject  of  the  powers 
of  the  state  and  general  governments. 

The  speakers  who  followed  Mr.  Webster  on  the  same  side,  expressed 
essentially  the  same  views  in  relation  to  the  great  constitutional  question. 
Several  of  them  displayed  great  ability ;  and,  like  others,  digressed  from 
the  subject  of  inquiry  proposed  by  the  resolution,  traversing  the  whole 
field  of  incidental  topics  drawn  into  the  discussion.  On  the  whole,  the 
debate  was  one  of  surpassing  interest.  It  abounds  with  historical  facts  of 
great  importance ;  which  alone  are  of  suflScient  value  to  repay  its  perusal. 

A  bill  passed  the  senate  at  this  session  to  reduce  the  price  of  public 
lands  having  been  for  a  certain  time  in  market,  and  to  grant  a  preference 
to  actual  settlers,  by  selling  to  them  at  a  lower  price  than  to  non-settlers. 
It  reached  the  house  at  a  late  period  of  the  session,  and  was  laid  on  the 
table  for  want  of  time  to  consider  it. 

A  bill  was  reported  in  the  house,  to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands,  after  the  payment  of  the  public  debt,  among 
the  several  states  for  purposes  of  education,  in  proportion  to  their  re- 
presentation, severally,  in  congress.  The  question  was  discussed  at 
length,  prior  to  the  report ;  but  the  bill  reported  was  not  acted  upon. 


CHAPTER  XL. 

UNITED    STATES    BANK. MAYSVILLE    ROAD    BILL,    AND     OTHERS. ^VETOES 

OF   THE    PRESIDENT. 

That  part  of  the  president's  message  which  related  to  the  bank  of  the 
United  States,  was  referred,  in  the  house,  to  the  committee  of  ways  and 
means,  who  made  a  most  elaborate  report  on  the  subject,  on  the  13th  of 
of  April,  1830.  The  report  was  made  by  Mr.  M'Duffie,  of  South  Caro- 
lina, from  whose  pen  it  probably  emanated.  He  was  a  supporter  of  the 
administration.  The  bank  question  had  several  times  been  an  agitating 
element  in  our  national  politics.  The  public  mind  had  again  become 
quiet  on  the  subject,  and  apparently  regarded  the  bank  as  having  become 


UNITED    STATES   BANK.  501 

a  permanent  fiscal  agent  of  the  government,  the  charter  of  which,  at  its 
expiration  in  1836,  would,  it  was  presumed,  be  renewed,  almost  as  a 
matter  of  course.  The  revival  of  this  question  under  such  circumstan- 
ces, and  at  a  period  nearly  six  years  before  application  for  a  recharter 
of  the  institution  was  to  have  been  expected,  gave  occasion  for  not  a 
little  speculation  as  to  the  cause  of  so  early  an  agitation  of  this  slum- 
bering subject. 

The  report  of  the  committee  presented  the  following  questions  for  the 
decision  of  congress  : 

1st.  Has  congress  the  constitutional  power  to  incorporate  a  bank,  such 
as  that  of  the  United  States  ? 

2d.  Is  it  expedient  to  establish  and  maintain  such  an  institution  ? 

3d.  Is  it  expedient  to  establish  "  a  national  bank,  founded  upon  the 
credit  of  the  government  and  its  revenues  ?" 

In  maintaining  the  affirmative  of  the  first  of  these  questions,  the 
committee  stated,  that  the  first  bank  had  been  incorporated  when  most 
of  the  leading  members  of  the  convention  of  the  framers  of  the  consti- 
tution were  in  the  executive  and  legislative  councils  of  the  nation. 
There  having  been  as  yet  no  organization  of  political  parties,  the  deci- 
sion of  the  question  was  presumed  to  have  been  unafi'ected  by  that  party 
prejudice  which  impairs  the  publio  confidence  in  a  legislative  interpreta- 
tion of  the  constitution. 

The  renewal  of  its  charter,  in  1811,  had  been  prevented  chiefly,  the 
committee  believed,  by  the  then  existing  state  of  political  parties.  Mr. 
Jefferson  and  Mr.  Madison,  the  former  in  the  cabinet,  and  the  latter  in 
congress,  had  opposed  the  first  bank  on  constitutional  grounds ;  and  as 
they  had  subsequently  been  placed  at  the  head  of  the  party  most 
unfavorable  to  the  extension  of  the  powers  of  government  by  implica- 
tion, the  bank  question  came  to  be  regarded  as,  in  some  degree,  a  test 
of  political  principle.  Some  of  the  most  distinguished  republicans,  how- 
ever, including  Mr.  Gallatin  and  Mr.  Crawford,  were  in  favor  of  the 
renewal.  It  was  at  the  time  of  the  embargo  and  non-intercourse  mea- 
sures— a  time  of  violent  party  excitement — when  the  leading  federal- 
ists, who  were  in  favor  of  the  bank,  were  peculiarly  odious  to  the  repub- 
licans. Prejudice  against  the  institution  was  increased  also  by  the  fact, 
that  the  greater  part  of  its  stock  was  held  by  British  subjects  and  fede- 
ralists. Yet,  with  all  these  difficulties  to  encounter,  the  question  of 
renewal  was  lost  only  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  president  of  the 
senate,  vice-president  George  Clinton,  and  by  i  majority  of  one  vote  in 
the  house  of  representatives. 

Within  three  years  thereafter,  and  before  the  close  of  the  war,  the 
circulating  medium  had  become  so  disordered,  and  the  Dublic  finances  so 


502  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

deranged,  that  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  Mr.  Pallas,  with  the 
sanctioQ  of  Mr.  Madison  and  his  cabinet,  recommended  to  congress  the 
establishment  of  a  bank,  to  revive  the  public  credit,  and  to  redeem  the 
fiscal  resources  of  the  government  from  embarrassment.  A  bill  was 
passed  by  both  houses,  and  vetoed  by  him ;  not,  however,  on  constitu- 
tional grounds — he  considered  the  question  of  constitutionality  settled — 
but  on  account  of  objections  to  certain  provisions  of  the  bill.  Another 
bill  was  immediately  introduced,  and  would  .probably  have  become  a  law, 
had  not  the  news  of  peace  induced  congress  to  suspend  further  proceed- 
ings until  the  next  session.  The  attention  of  congress  was  then  again 
directed  to  the  subject  by  the  president  and  his  secretary ;  and,  against 
the  opposition  of  the  state  banks,  and  the  debtor  class  of  community,  a 
bill  was  passed,  and  approved  by  Mr.  Madison. 

The  committee  then  proceeded  to  discuss  the  constitutionality  of  a 
national  bank.  The  power  of  congress  to  create  a  corporation  had  been 
denied.  If  congress,  under  the  "  power  to  pass  all  laws  necessary  and 
proper  to  carry  into  effect  powers"  expressly  granted,  might  inflict  the 
punishment  of  death  without  any  other  authority,  why  might  it  not  pass 
a  law  for  creating  a  corporation?  The  chartering  of  a  bank  does  not 
authorize  the  corporation  to  do  any  thing  which  the  individuals  compos- 
ing it  might  not  do  without  a  charter.  The  only  material  particular  in 
which  the  charter  of  the  bank  conferred  a  privilege  upon  the  corpora- 
tion apparently  inconsistent  with  the  state  laws,  was  the  exemption  of  the 
individual  property  of  the  corporators  from  responsibility  for  the  debts 
of  the  corporation.  But  if  the  comimunity  dealt  with  the  bank  knowing 
that  the  capital  subscribed  was  alone  liable  for  its  debts,  no  one  could 
complain  of  imposition  or  injury.  The  real  complaint  against  the  bank 
was,  not  that  it  had  not  sufficient  basis  for  its  credit,  but  that  its  credit 
was  too  extensive :  not  against  the  artificial  character  communicated  to 
the  stockholders  by  the  charter,  but  against  the  pecuniary  operations  of 
the  bank  itself.  These  operations  consisted  in  the  use  of  its  own  capi- 
tal— a  faculty  not  derived  from  the  government,  but  on  the  exercise  of 
which  the  government  imposes  many  useful  restrictions  for  the  benefit 
of  itself  and  of  the  community.  This  analysis  of  a  bank  corporation 
was  intended  to  show  that  it  was  not  an  unfit  instrument  in  the  hands 
of  a  government  admitted  to  be  sovereign  in  its  appropriate  sphere,  for 
carrying  into  effect  the  powers  expressly  delegated. 

The  committee  say  :  "  It  will  be  no  less  instructive  than  curious,  to 
notice  some  of  the  changes  made  in  the  opinions  of  prominent  men, 
yielding  to  the  authority  of  experience.  Mr.  Madison,  who  was  the 
leading  opponent  of  the  bank  created  in  1 79 1 ,  recommended  and  sanc- 
tioned the  bank  created  in  1816  j  and  Mr.  Clay,  who  strenuously  opposed 


UNITED    STATES   BANK.  503 

the  renewal  of  the  charter  in  1811,  as  strenuously  supported  the  propo- 
sition to  grant  the  charter  in  1816." 

In  discussing  the  second  question — that  of  expediency — the  committee 
assumed  as  a  fact,  the  continued  existence  of  a  state  paper  currency,  which 
could  not  be  prohibited  by  congress.  But  if  it  could  be,  they  question 
the  expediency  of  suddenly  withdrawing  one  hundred  millions  of  bank 
credit.  The  question  really  presented  was,  not  between  a  metallic  and 
a  paper  currency,  but  between  a  paper  currency  of  uniform  value,  sub- 
ject to  a  competent  controlling  power,  and  a  paper  currency  of  fluctuat- 
ing value,  and  subject  to  no  adequate  control.  A  large  number  of  local 
banks  had  sprung  up  in  consequence  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  fifteen 
million  of  bank  credit,  by  the  winding  up  of  the  first  bank  of  the  United 
States.  These  banks,  free  from  the  control  formerly  exercised  by  that 
bank  over  the  local  institutions,  made  excessive  issues,  which  speedily  in- 
volved the  country  in  all  the  embarrassments  of  a  disordered  currency. 

From  a  scale  of  depreciation  of  the  local  currency,  presented  by  the 
committee,  it  appeared  that  the  paper  of  the  banks  in  Washington  and 
Baltimore  was  from  20  to  22  per  cent,  below  par.  At  Philadelphia,  17  to 
18  per  cent.  At  New  York  and  Charleston,  it  was  from  7  to  10  per 
cent.  In  western  Pennsylvania,  it  was  25  per  cent.  But  this  relative 
depreciation  of  bank  paper  at  different  places,  as  compared  with  specie, 
was  not  the  worst  evil  produced  by  excessive  issues  of  bank  paper. 
The  value  of  money,  whether  specie  or  paper,  depreciated  in  proportion 
to  the  increase  of  its  quantity.  Hence  if  the  circulating  medium  should 
be  doubled,  the  prices  of  commodities  would  increase  in  the  same  propor- 
tion, let  the  credit  of  the  bank  bills  be  ever  so  good.  Therefore,  an  individual 
who  had  borrowed  a  sum  of  money  in  1816,  when  there  was  so  great  a 
redundancy  of  money  caused  by  the  increased  issues  of  bank  paper,  and 
who  paid  the  debt  in  1820,  when  money  had  regained  its  natural  value, 
evidently  returned  to  the  lender  double  the  value  received  from  him. 
The  power  of  banks  to  suspend  specie  payments,  and  arbitrarily  to  con- 
tract and  expand  their  issues,  without  any  general  control,  exercised  a 
dangerous  and  despotic  power  over  the  property  of    the  community. 

The  government,  the  committee  said,  had  sustained  great  losses,  in  its 
fiscal  operations,  during  the  war,  for  the  want  of  a  sound  currency.  It 
had  borrowed  during  this  short  period,  80  millions,  at  an  average  dis- 
count of  15  per  cent.,  giving  certificates  of  stock,  amounting  to  80  mil- 
lions, in  exchange  for  68  millions  in  such  bank  paper  as  could  be  ob- 
tained. Ilere  was  a  loss  of  12  millions,  which  would  probably  have 
been  saved  by  a  national  bank.  But  this  sum  of  68  millions  was  received 
in  a  depreciated  currency,  not  more  than  half  as  valuable  as  that  in 
which  the  stock  given  in  exchange  for  it  had  been  and  would  be  re- 
deemed. Here  was  a  loss  of  34  millions  more. 


504  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  committee  controverted  the  statement  of  the  president  in  hig 
message,  that  the  bank  had  "  failed  in  the  great  end  of  establishing  a 
uniform  and  sound  currency."  He  probably  referred  to  the  fact^  that 
the  bills  issued  by  any  one  of  its  branches  are  not  redeemed  by  all  the 
other  branches.  To  have  required  this,  would  have  been  inexpedient  and 
unjust.  The  effect  would  have  been  to  compel  the  bank  to  perform  the 
whole  of  the  commercial  exchanges  of  the  country  without  compensation. 

It  was  not  denied  that  the  bills  of  the  bank  and  all  its  branches  were 
invariably  redeemed  at  their  respective  offices  ;  nor  was  it  denied  that 
they  were  equal  to  specie  in  their  respective  spheres  of  circulation.  If  a 
Philadelphia  merchant  had  silver  instead  of  bank  bills,  he  could  not  effect 
his  purchases  in  New  Orleans  without  paying  for  its  transportation  and 
insurance.  These  expenses  constituted  the  natural  rate  of  exchange  be- 
tween the  cities,  and  indicated  the  sum  which  the  merchant  would  give  as 
a  premium  for  a  bill  of  exchange,  to  avoid  the  trouble  and  delay  of  trans- 
porting his  specie.  And  the  bills  of  the  bank  would  purchase  a  bill  of 
exchange  precisely  as  well  as  silver. 

The  committee  adverted  to  the  great  reduction  which  the  bank  had  effected 
in  the  rate  of  commercial  exchanges;  and  to  its  having  actually  furnished  a 
circulating  medium  more  uniform  than  specie  ;  which  was  demonstrated 
by  the  fact  that  a  Louisiana  planter,  if  the  whole  circulating  medium 
were  specie,  would,  in  order  to  make  purchases  in  Philadelphia,  be 
obliged  to  pay  more  either  for  a  bill  of  exchange  or  for  the  transporta- 
tion and  insurance  of  his  specie,  than  it  would  cost  to  buy  at  the  branch 
at  New  Orleans  a  draft  upon  the  mother  bank  at  Philadelphia.  If, 
however,  he  did  not  choose  to  purchase  a  draft,  he  might  transmit  the 
bills  to  the  most  distant  point,  where,  being  receivable  in  payment  of  all 
dues  to  the  government,  persons  would  receive  them  at  par ;  and  the 
bank  would  frequently  receive  them  at  par,  and  always  at  a  discount  less 
than  would  pay  for  transporting  the  specie.  And  for  purposes  of  reve- 
nue, the  bank  gave  to  the  national  currency  perfect  uniformity — a  per- 
fection to  which  a  currency  of  gold  and  silver,  in  so  extensive  a  country, 
could  have  no  pretensions.  A  bill  wherever  issued,  was  of  equal  value 
with  specie  in  payment  of  duties  at  any  other  place,  however  distant, 
where  the  bank  issued  bills,  and  the  bank  collects  revenue. 

The  bank  also  served  to  enforce  specie  payments  by  the  local  banks, 
and  had  aided  them  in  doing  so.  It  had  been  said  that  the  government, 
by  making  the  resumption  and  continuance  of  specie  payments  the  con- 
dition upon  which  the  state  banks  should  receive  the  government  funds, 
might  have  restored  the  currency  to  a  state  of  uniformity.  Not  only 
could  not  this  object  have  been  accomplished  in  this  way,  but  such  a  con- 
nection between  the  federal  government  and  the  state  banks  would,  as  the 


UNITED    STATES    BANK.  505 

committee  believed,  be  dangerous  to  the  purity  of  both ;  and  they  gave 
at  length  their  reasons  for  this  opinion. 

'  The  management  of  the  bank,  for  the  last  ten  years,  was  spoken  of  in 
high  terms  by  the  committee.  It  had  been  such  as  to  accomplish  the 
great  ends  for  which  it  was  established^,  and  to  promote  the  permanent 
interest  of  the  stockholders,  with  the  least  practicable  pressure  upon  the 
local  banks.  It  had  also  carefully  abstained  from  bringing  its  power 
and  influence  to  bear  upon  political  questions. 

In  discussing  the  third  question,  the  expediency  of  establishing  "  a 
national  bank  founded  upon  the  credit  of  the  government  and  its  reve- 
nues," the  committee  presumed  it  to  have  been  the  intention  of  the  pre- 
sident to  be  understood  as  having  allusion  to  a  bank  of  discount  and  de- 
posits. Such  a  bank  must  have  branches  similar  to  those  of  the  present 
bank.  -  It  was  not  sufficient  for  commercial  purposes,  that  persons  in  re- 
mote parts  of  the  union  had  the  promise  of  being  paid  specie  for  its 
notes  at  a  central  bank  at  the  seat  of  government.  The  place  of  re- 
demption being  so  remote  from  the  place  of  circulation,  as  to  prevent 
their  being  presented  for  payment  without  great  expense,  they  must  be 
of  very  unequal  value  in  different  parts  of  the  country.  Its  loans  also 
must  be  confined  principally  to  the  place  of  its  location.  If  it  had  as 
many  branches  as  the  bank  of  the  United  States,  which  employed  five 
hundred  agents  in  its  various  places  of  business,  a  vast  addition  would 
be  made  to  the  patronage  of  the  executive;  and,  what  was  worse,  was 
the  power  of  patronage  resulting  from  the  dispensation  of  bank  accom- 
modations to  the  amount  of  fifty  millions  of  dollars ! 

The  government  was  not  adapted  to  a  business  of  this  kind.  Capital 
thus  employed  required  a  vigilant  and  skillful  superintendence,  such  as 
could  be  expected  only  from  those  who  were  influenced  by  the  ever  active 
motive  of  individual  interest.  Private  friendship  and  political  attach- 
ment would  operate  on  the  directors  of  a  government  bank  to  bestow  its 
favors  without  impartiality  or  prudence ;  and  losses  would  be  sustained 
by  the  insolvencies  of  government  debtors.  Experience  had  demonstrated 
the  danger  of  having  large  masses  of  the"  community  indebted  to  the 
government.  But  the  strongest  objection  to  a  government  bank  was  the 
powerful,  and  in  the  hands  of  a  bad  administration,  the  corrupting  in- 
fluence which  it  would  exercise  over  the  elections  of  the  country.  With 
such  a  tremendous  engine  in  their  hands,  it  would  be  almost  impossible 
to  displace  them  without  some  miraculous  interposition  of  Providence. 

A  report  like  the  foregoing,  from  a  committee  of  seven  members,  five 
of  whom  were  friends  of  the  administration,  was  unexpected  ;  and  that 
Mr.  M'Duffie,  the  author  of  the  report,  should  have  departed  so  far 
from  the  southern  principle  of  strict  construction,  as  to  assert  so  doubt- 


506  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ful  a  power  as  that  of  incorporatmg  a  national  bank,  was  a  cause  of 
wonder — and  the  more  so,  since  this  power  was  more  extensively  ques- 
tioned than  that  claimed  for  a  protective  tariff,  so  flatly  denied  by  Mr. 
M'Duffie  and  his  southern  friends. 

Pursuant  to  a  resolution  of  the  senate,  the  finance  committee  of  that 
body  also,  on  the  29th  of  March,  made  a  report  on  "  the  expediency  of 
establishing  a  uniform  national  currency  for  the  United  States."  The 
committee  consisted  of  five  members,  three  of  them  political  friends  of 
Gen.  Jackson,  of  whom  was  the  chairman,  Mr.  Smith,  of  Maryland. 
The  report  maintained,  that  there  existed  a  sound  and  uniform  currency, 
both  for  the  government  and  the  community,  furnished  by  the  bank  of 
the  United  States ;  and  they  declared  the  objections  to  the  president's 
proposed  government  bank  to  be  "  insuperable  and  fatal,"  and  the  scheme 
to  be  "  impracticable." 

A  bill  to  authorize  the  general  government  to  subscribe  to  the  stock 
of  the  Maysville  and  Lexington  turnpike  road,  in  the  state  of  Kentucky, 
was  passed  by  both  houses  at  this  session,  but  received  the  veto  of  the 
president.  In  his  message  returning  the  bill  with  his  objections  to  the 
house  of  representatives,  he  refers  to  his  annual  message  for  an  exhibi- 
tion of  his  views  on  the  subject  of  internal  improvements.  He  refers 
also  to  the  opinions  of  Madison  and  Monroe  on  similar  occasions.  To 
justify  an  appropriation  for  internal  improvement,  the  object  must  be 
one  of  common  defense,  and  of  a  general  and  national^  not  a  local  or 
state  benefit. 

The  last  administration,  he  said,  had  carried  the  appropriating  pov/er 
to  the  utmost  extent  claimed  for  it ;  and  it  would  be  difiicult,  if  not  im- 
practicable, to  bring  back  the  operations  of  the  government  to  the  con- 
struction of  the  constitution  set  up  in  1793;  assuming  that  to  belts 
true  reading  in  relation  to  the  power  under  consideration. 

He  objected  also,  that  the  bills  already  passed,  and  those  which  would 
probably  pass  before  the  adjournment  of  congress,  anticipated  aprjropri- 
ations  which,  with  the  ordinary  public  expenditures,  would  exceed  the 
amount  in  the  treasury  for  the  year  1830.  Adding  to  these  the  amount 
required  by  the  bills  then  pending,  the  excess  over  the.  treasury  receipts, 
(the  revenue  having  been  diminished  by  the  reduction  of  thp  duties  on 
tea,  coffee,  &c.,)  would  exceed  ten  millions  of  dollars. 

On  the  question  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  notwithstanding  the  objec- 
tions of  the  president,  a  short,  though  animated  and  acrimonious  debate 
arose,  in  which  some  of  the  president's  political  friends  expressed^  a 
strong  dislike  to  the  veto  message.  Mr.  Daniel,  of  Kentucky,  had  sup- 
ported the  measure,  but  was  disposed  to  give  the  people  an  opportunity 
to  consider  coolly  the  objections  urged  by  the  president.     His  views  on 


MAYSVILLE    ROAD   BILL.  507 

constitutional  power  coincided  mainly  with  the  message,  although  he  did 
not  agree,  in  every  particular,  with  the  doctrine  contained  in  it.  He  was 
in  favor  of  internal  improvements,  but  thought  the  system,  as  it  had  been 
heretofore  pursued,  and  as  it  had  been  attempted  at  the  present  session, 
would  soon  involve  the  nation  in  an  immense  debt. 

Mr.  Stanbery,  of  Ohio,  also  of  the  administration  party,  considered 
the  message  as  the  voice  of  the  president's  chief  minister,  rather  than 
of  the  president  himself  The  hand  of  the  "  great  magician"  was  visi- 
ble in  every  line.  The  apprehension  of  a  want  of  money  to  meet  this 
small  appropriation  he  thought  unfounded.  Most  of  the  bills  were 
merely  the  evidence  of  the  opinions  of  the  committees  who  had  reported 
them,  and  would  not  become  laws.  The  document  was  artfully  contri- 
ved to  bring  the  system  of  internal  improvement  into  disrepute,  and  to 
deceive  the  people.  It  could  never  have  issued  from  the  president. 
The  appropriations  which  had  been  made,  had  been  asked  for  by  the 
executive  officers  themselves,  who  had  asked  for  more  than  had  been 
granted.  The  most  extravagant  project  this  session,  which  he  feared 
would  for  ever  disgrace  this  congress,  was  the  removal  of  all  the  southern 
Indians,  and  had  come  recommended  as  the  peculiar  favorite  of  the  exe- 
cutive. Many  members  had  been  induced  to  vote  for  the  bill,  contrary 
to  their  consciences,  not  having  had  independence  to  oppose  the  wishes 
of  the  president.  He  (Mr.  S.)  had  many  reasons  for  his  opposition  to 
that  bill :  one  was  the  belief  that  its  passage  would  strike  a  death  blow 
to  the  whole  system  of  internal  improvement.  It  had  received  the  sup- 
port of  all  the  enemies  to  that  system. 

Mr.  Polk  replied  to  Mr.  Stanbery  in  very  severe  terms,  calling  him 
"  a  covert,  political  adversary,"  and  charging  him  with  having  recently 
formed  new  associations ;  and  proceeded  to  defend  the  president  from 
the  aspersions  cast  upon  him.  He  (the  president)  had  followed  the 
examples  of  Madison  and  Monroe ;  and  had  achieved  a  civil  victory 
which  would  shed  more  lustre  upon  his  future  fame  than  many  such  vic- 
tories as  that  of  New  Orleans  ;  for  he  had,  by  this  single  act,  done  more 
than  any  man  in  this  country,  for  the  last  thirty  years,  to  preserve  the 
constitution,  and  to  perpetuate  our  liberties.  Mr.  P.  animadverted  with 
equal  severity  upon  certain  remarks  of  Mr.  Chilton,  a  former  supporter 
of  the  president,  who  had  asked  if  congress  were  to  be  controlled  by 
one  man.  He  defended  the  veto  power  as  a  wholesome  check  upon  the 
acts  of  the  legislature. 

The  debate  was  continued  by  Messrs.  P.  P.  Barbour,  of  Virginia, 
Bell  and  Isacks,  of  Tennessee,  and  Wayne,  of  Georgia,  on  the  same 
side ;  and  by  Mr.  Yance,  of  Ohio,  in  opposition.  Mr.  Sutherhind,  of 
Pennsylvania,  said  he  would  vote  for  the  bill,  though  he  was  a  friend  of 


508  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Gen.  Jackson.  He  represented  a  state  which  was  friendly  both  to  the 
president  and  to  the  system  of  internal  improvements,  which  would  yet 
universally  prevail.  The  question  was  decided  by  a  vote  of  ayea,  96, 
noes,  90.  Not  having  received  the  votes  of  two-thirds  of  the  house,  the 
bill  was  rejected.  The  vote  of  the  house  on  its  passage  before  it  had 
been  presented  to  the  president,  was  96  to  87  ;  and  that  of  the  senate, 
24  to  18. 

Many  of  the  friends  of  Gen.  Jackson,  who,  by  his  course  in  the 
senate,  and  his  explicit  assurance  in  his  answer  to  the  legislature  of 
Indiana,  of  his  adherence  to  the  tariff  and  internal  improvement  sys- 
tems, were  both  disappointed  and  displeased  at  this  exercise  of  the  veto 
power,  regarding  it  as  an  abandonment  of  his  former  principles.  To 
the  south,  the  act  was  peculiarly  gratifying ;  and  it  was  defended  by 
a  large  majority  of  his  friends  even  at  the  north,  who  either  declared 
their  opposition  to  the  system,  or  regarded  the  veto,  not  as  evidence  of 
hostility  to  the  system,  but  simply  as  being  demanded  by  the  unconsti- 
tutionality of  this  particular  measure.  Southern  feeling  was  truly 
represented  by  Mr.  P.  P.  Barbour  on  the  rejection,  at  the  same  session, 
of  the  Buffalo  and  New  Orleans  road  bill.  The  house  having  decided 
against  the  third  reading  of  the  bill,  105  to  88,  Mr.  B.,  thinking  "  that 
the  house  had  done  enough  for  glory  for  one  day,  moved  that  it  now 
adjourn. "  The  house,  however,  on  that  occasion,  by  a  larger  vote,  refused 
to  adjourn. 

Another  bill,  authorizing  a  subscription  to  the  Washington  Turnpike 
company,  was  also  negatived  at  this  session  by  the  president ;  and  two 
others,  one  authorizing  a  subscription  to  the  Louisville  and  Portland  canal 
company  ;  another,  appropriating  money  for  lighthouses,  improving  har- 
bors, directing  surveys,  &c.,  were  retained  until  the  next  session  of 
congress,  when,  in  his  annual  message,  December,  1830,  he  gave  at 
length  his  objections  to  the  bills,  and  to  the  system  of  internal  improve- 
ments, and  again  suggested  the  propriety  of  a  general  plan  by  which  an 
equal- distribution  of  the  surplus  revenues  should  be  made  among  the 
several  states,  to  be  used  for  purposes  of  internal  improvements. 

The  committee,  in  the  house  of  representatives,  to  which  this  part  of 
the  message  was  referred,  Mr.  Hemphill,  of  Pennsylvania,  chairman,  a 
friend  of  the  administration,  made  a  report,  February,  1831,  adverse  to 
the  views  of  the  president.  The  report  took  a  minute  review  of  the 
practice  of  the  government,  showing  that  it  had  been,  on  the  whole, 
favorable  to  internal  improvements.  The  committee  had  little  if  any 
doubt  as  to  the  nationality  or  expediency  of  some  of  the  bills  passed  at 
the  preceding  session,  and  vetoed  by  the  president.  Some  parts  of  the 
message  relating  to  this  subject  were  severely  commented  upon,  as  likely 


VETOES  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  509 

to  lead  to  incorrect  conclusions.  The  message  stated  the  expenditures 
heretofore  made  for  internal  improvements  at  upwards  of  five  millions 
of  dollars;  and  the  estimated  expense  of  works  partially  and  entirely 
surveyed  and  projected,  at  ninety-six  millions.  The  president  having 
been  called  on  for  a  statement  of  all  these  works,  had  included  in  his 
report  objects  not  considered  by  the  committee  as  properly  coming  under 
the  head  of  internal  improvements.  They  did  not  consider  works  facili- 
tating foreign  commerce  to  be  of  such  character;  but  the  president 
had  embraced  in  his  report,  the  expenses  of  "building  piers,  improving 
ports,  bays,  and  harbors,  and  of  removing  obstructions  to  the  navigation 
of  rivers;"  and  these  made  up  nearly  one-half  of  what  was  called 
"  expenditures  for  internal  improvements." 

The  committee  concluded  their  report  by  offering  a  resolution,  "  That 
it  is  expedient  that  the  general  government  should  continue  to  prosecute 
internal  improvements  by  direct  appropriations  of  money,  or  by  sub- 
scriptions for  stock  in  companies  incorporated  in  the  respective  states." 

An  act  was  passed  at  this  session,  "  making  additional  appropriations 
for  the  improvement  of  certain  harbors,  and  removing  obstructions  in 
the  mouths  of  certain  rivers,"  by  large  majorities :  in  the  house  by  a 
vote  of  136  to  53  ;  in  the  senate,  28  to  6.  An  act  was  also  passed, 
"  for  carrying  on  certain  roads  and  works  of  internal  improvement,  and 
for  providing  for  surveys,"  by  large  majorities.  Whether  the  president 
regarded  these  bills  as  free  from  the  objections  to  which  former  bills 
were  liable ;  or  whether  he  believed  it  the  duty  of  the  executive  to  yield 
to  so  decisive  an  expression  of  the  wishes  of  the  people  through  their 
representatives,  we  are  not  informed. 

At  the  session  of  1829-30,  an  act  for  the  more  effectual  collection  of 
impost  duties,  was  passed.  It  was  shown  by  Mr.  Mallary,  that  enor- 
mous frauds  upon  the  revenue  had  been  committed,  by  means  of  false 
invoices  and  sample  packages,  and  by  various  other  expedients.  It  was 
estimated,  that  the  treasury  had  been  defrauded  for  the  last  ten  years, 
to  the  amount  of  $3,000,000  annually.  Mr.  M'Duffie,  by  way  of 
amendment,  offered  a  bill,  previously  reported  by  himself  as  chairman 
of  the  committee  of  ways  and  means,  proposing  an  essential  reduction 
of  duties  on  iron,  hemp,  wool,  cotton,  raw,  and  manufactured ;  salt, 
sugar,  molasses,  &c.  He  was  in  favor,  he  said,  of  enforcing  the  col- 
lection of  the  revenue,  even  though  he  might  object  to  the  laws  by  which 
it  was  levied.  But  in  this  case  he  would  do  it  by  diminishing  the 
duties,  and  thereby  removing  the  inducements  to  evade  them.  Mr. 
M'Dufl&e  occupied  the  floor  several  days,  discussing  the  policy  af  the 
protecting  system,  and  exhibiting  what  he  deemed  its  pernicious  effects 
upon  the  country. 


510  THE    AI\rERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  M'D.  was  negatived;  and  the  bill  after  hav- 
ing been  amended,  became  a  law.  Separate  acts  were  passed ;  one  "  to 
reduce  the  duty  on  molasses,  and  to  allow  a  drawback  on  spirits  distilled 
from  foreign  materials ;"  another,  "  to  reduce  the  duty  on  salt;"  and 
still  another,  "  to  reduce  the  duties  on  tea,  coffee,  and  cocoa."  It  will 
perhaps  be  recollected,  that  the  duty  on  molasses  was,  in  1828,  increased 
from  five  to  ten  cents  a  gallon,  against  the  wishes  of  the  people  of  a 
large  portion  of  the  northern  and  eastern  states.  It  was  alleged,  at  the 
time,  that  the  object  of  this  proposed  increase  of  duty  on  this  and  cer- 
tain articles  was  to  ''  weigh  down  the  bill"  of  that  year,  by  making  it 
objectionable  to  the  friends  of  protection.  This,  with  the  additional 
fact,  that  the  duties  on  tea,  coffee,  &c.,  had  been  laid  for  revenue  only, 
was  not  now  so  much  needed,  doubtless  facilitated  the  passage  of  these 


CHAPTER  XLI. 

GEORGIA     AND     THE     CHEROKEES. DEBATE     ON     THE     "  INDIAN     BILL." 

OPINION   OF    THE    SUPREME    COURT. 

The  establishment,  by  the  Indian  tribes,  of  independent  governments 
within  any  of  the  states,  with  a  view  to  a  permanent  location,  and  the 
expediency  of  arresting  such  location,  had  been  made  the  subject  of 
inquiry  at  the  session  of  congress  of  1827-8.  It  was  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee, but  no  report  was  made:  and  the  subject  received  no  farther 
attention  during  Mr.  Adams'  administration.  The  determination  ex- 
pressed in  the  message  of  G-en.  Jackson,  to  suppress  the  attempts  of  the 
Indians  to  establish  and  maintain  governments  of  their  own  within  the 
states  of  Georgia  and  Alabama,  and  to  effect  their  removal  beyond  the 
Mississippi,  or  to  permit  their  subjection  to  the  sovereignty  and  legisla- 
tion of  those  states,  had  been  intimated  almost  immediately  after  the 
new  administration  came  into  power. 

A  delegation  of  the  Cberokees  were  officially  informed,  that  the  gov- 
ernment would  sustain  the  states  in  exercising  jurisdiction  over  the 
Indians  within  their  limits,  and  that  their  exemption  from  the  operation 
of  the  laws  of  those  states  was  to  be  hoped  for  only  by  removal.  In 
August,  1829,  a  proposition  was  made  by  the  general  government 
through  Gov.  Carroll,  of  Tennessee,  to  John  Ross,  principal  chief  of 
the  Cherokees,  to  meet  commissioners  to  be  appointed  by  the  president, 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  CHEROKEES.  511 

to  discuss  the  subject  of  tlieir  removal.  This  proposition  was  declined. 
From  the  oft  repeated  declarations  of  the  Indians,  of  their  indisposition 
to  remove,  it  was  well  known  that  no  offers  could  induce  them  to  enter 
into  a  treaty  on  the  subject. 

In  December  following,  an  act  was  passed  by  the  legislature  of  Georgia, 
annexing  the  different  portions  of  their  territory  to  the  adjoining  coun- 
ties, extending  over  them  the  laws  of  the  state,  and  annulling  the  laws 
and  regulations  of  the  Indians  ;  the  act  to  take  effect  the  1st  of  June, 
1830.  This  act  was  followed  by  a  memorial  to  congress,  setting  forth 
their  grievance  in  the  following  pathetic  terms  : 

"  We  are  told,  if  we  do  not  leave  the  country,  which  we  dearly  love, 
and  betake  ourselves  to  the  western  wilds,  the  laws  of  the  state  will  be 
extended  over  us;  and  the  time,  the  1st  of  June,  1830,  is  appointed  for 
the  execution  of  the  edict.  When  we  first  heard  of  this,  we  were 
grieved,  and  appealed  to  our  father,  the  president,  and  begged  that  pro- 
tection might  be  extended  over  us.  But  we  were  doubly  grieved  when 
we  understood,  from  a  letter  of  the  secretary  of  war  to  our  delegation, 
dated  March  of  the  present  year,  that  our  father,  the  president,  had 
refused  us  protection,  and  that  he  had  decided  in  favor  of  the  exten- 
sion of  the  laws  of  the  state  over  us.  This  decision  induces  us  to  appeal 
to  the  immediate  representatives  of  the  American  people." 

Against  the  claim  of  Georgia  to  the  right  of  soil  and  of  jurisdiction 
over  it,  the  memorial  says :  "  When  the  white  man  came  to  the  shores 
of  America,  our  ancestors  were  found  in  peaceable  possession  of  this 
very  land.  They  bequeathed  it  to  us  as  their  children,  and  we  have 
sacredly  kept  it  as  containing  the  remains  of  oiir  beloved  men.  This 
right  of  inheritance  we  have  never  ceded,  nor  QYev  forfeited.  Permit  us 
to  ask.  What  better  right  can  a  people  have  to  a  country  than  the  right 
of  inheritance,  and  immemorial  peaceable  possession  ?  We  know  it  is 
said  of  late  by  the  state  of  Georgia,  and  by  the  executive  of  the  United 
States,  that  we  have  forfeited  this  right.  At  what  time  have  we  made 
the  forfeit  ?  Was  it  when  we  were  hostile  to  the  United  States,  and 
took  part  with  Great  Britain,  during  the  struggle  for  independence  ?  If 
so,  why  was  not  this  forfeiture  declared  in  the  first  treaty  of  peace 
between  the  United  States  and  our  beloved  men  ?  This  was  the  proper 
time  to  assume  such  a  position.  But  it  was  not  thought  of;  nor  would 
our  forefathers  have  agreed  to  any  treaty  whose  tendency  was  to  deprive 
them  of  their  rights  and  their  country." 

As  another  evidence  of  their  right  to  the  lands  in  question,  they  had 
the  faith  and  pledge  of  the  United  States,  repeated  over  and  ever  again, 
in  treaties  at  various  times,  by  which  their  rights  as  a  separate  people 
had  been  distinctly  acknowledged,  and  guaranties  given  that  they  should 


5i^  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

be  secured  and  protected.  Yet  it  was  asserted  that  they  held  their 
lands  only  by  a  right  of  occupancy.  They  say  :  "  In  what  light  shall 
we  view  the  conduct  of  the  United  States  and  Georgia,  in  their  inter- 
course with  uSj  in  urging  us  to  enter  into  treaties  and  cede  lands  ?  If 
we  were  but  tenants  at  will,  why  was  it  necessary  that  our  consent  must 
be  obtained  before  these  governments  could  take  lawful  possession  of  our 
lands?  #  *  *  rjr^Q  undersigned  memorialists  humbly  represent, 
that  if  their  interpretation  of  the  treaties  has  been  different  from  that 
of  the  government,  then  they  have  ever  been  deceived  as  to  how  the 
government  regarded  them,  and  what  she  asked  and  promised. 

"  In  view  of  the  strong  ground  upon  which  their  rights  are  founded, 
your  memoralists  solemnly  protest  against  being  considered  mere  tenants 
at  will,  or  as  mere  occupants  of  the  soil,  without  possessing  the  sove- 
reignty. We  protest  against  being  forced  to  leave  it,  either  by  direct  or 
indirect  measures.  To  the  land  of  which  we  are  now  in  possession,  we 
are  attached — it  is  our  fathers'  gift — it  contains  their  ashes — it  is  the 
land  of  our  nativity,  and  the  land  of  our  intellectual  birth.  We  do 
moreover  protest  against  the  arbitrary  measures  of  our  neighbor,  the 
state  of  Georgia,  in  her  attempt  to  extend  her  laws  over  us,  in  survey- 
ing our  lands  without  our  consent,  and  in  direct  opposition  to  treaties 
and  the  intercourse  law  of  the  United  States,  and  interfering  with  our 
municipal  regulations  so  as  to  derange  the  regular  operation  of  our  own 
laws.  The  existence  and  future  happiness  of  your  memorialists  are  at 
stake :  divest  them  of  their  liberty  and  country,  and  you  sink  them  in 
degradation,  and  put  a  check,  if  not  a  final  stop,  to  their  present  pro- 
gress in  the  arts  of  civilized  life,  and  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Christian 
religion.  Your  memorialists  can  not  anticipate  such  a  result.  You 
represent  a  virtuous,  intelligent,  and  Christian  nation.  To  you  they 
willingly  submit  their  cause  for  your  righteous  decision." 

On  the  29th  of  March,  1830,  the  attorney -general,  Mr.  Berrien, 
having  been  applied  to  for  his  opinion  in  relation  to  the  title  of  the  lands 
occupied  by  the  Cherokees,  communicated  the  same  to  the  war  depart- 
ment. He  maintained,  on  the  authority  of  decisions  of  the  supreme 
court,  that  the  right  of  the  Indians  to  the  lands  in  question,  was  one  of 
occupancy  merely.  The  court  had  declared,  that,  by  the  treaty  with 
Great  Britain  which  concluded  the  revolution,  the  powers  of  government 
and  the  rights  to  the  soil  which  had  been  in  Great  Britain,  passed 
definitively  to  the  states;  and  that  the  United  States,  or  the  several 
states,  had  a  clear  title  to  all  lands  within  the  boundary  lines  described 
in  the  treaty,  subject  only  to  the  Indian  right  of  occupancy. 

In  confirmation  of  his  opinion,  he  referred  also  to  the  treaties  with 
this  tribe.     In  the  first,  which  was  concluded  at  Hopewell  in  1 785,  they 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  CHEROKEES.  513 

were  manifestly  considered  as  a  conquered  people  ;  and  the  terms  of  that 
instrument  recognized  the  principle  adverted  to  by  the  supreme  court 
in  the  case  of  Johnson  and  M'Intosh,  "  that  a  conqueror  prescribes  the 
limits  of  the  right  of  conquest :  and  that  the  limitations  which  humanity 
imposes  upon  civilized  nations  can  not  be  applied  and  enforced  in  rela- 
tion to  a  savage  tribe."  The  treaty  declares,  that  the  United  States 
"  give  peace  to  all  the  Cherokees,  and  receive  them  into  i\iQ  favor  and 
protection  of  the  United  States  of  America,  on  the  following  conditions.'''' 
This  language  supposed  that  the  tribe  was  no  longer  in  an  independent 
state,  in  which  it  could  stipulate  for  itself  that  there  should  be  peace 
between  the  United  States  and  its  people.  It  could  receive  peace  only 
as  a  boon — as  the  mere  favor  of  the  conqueror.  They  were  required  to 
acknowledge  themselves  under  the  protection  of  this  government,  and  to 
abjure  all  other  protection.  Thus  humbled  before  their  conqueror,  a 
country  had  been  assigned  them  in  which  they  might  dwell ;  or,  as  ex- 
pressed by  the  treaty,  "  allotted  to  the  Cherokees  for  their  hunting 
grounds.''''  No  interest  in  the  soil  had  been  conferred  ;  the  fee  remain- 
ing in  the  state.  Upon  this  principle,  it  was  contended,  all  the  subse- 
quent treaties  must  be  interpreted. 

By  a  treaty  made  in  1817,  the  United  States  agree  to  exchange  lands 
with  those  Cherokees  who  wished  to  remove  beyond  the  Mississippi 
river,  and  to  pay  them  for  valuable  improvements  made  on  their  lands. 
This  treaty  also  provided,  "  that  all  those  improvements,  left  by  the 
emigrants  within  the  bounds  of  the  Cherokee  nation,  east  of  the  Missis- 
sippi river,  which  add  real  value  to  the  lands,  and  for  which  the 
United  States  shall  give  a  consideration,  and  not  so  exchanged,  shall  be 
rented  to  the  Indians,  until  surrendered  to  the  nation  or  by  the  nation." 
The  attorney-general  maintained,  that  the  United  States,  in  consideration 
of  these  payments,  became  landholders  in  the  Cherokee  nation,  within 
the  limits  of  those  boundaries  which  were  yet  reserved  to  them  as  hunt- 
ing grounds.  The  exchanges  and  leases  made  under  this  agreement,  gave 
to  the  parties  exchanging  and  to  the  lessees  the  right  of  occupancy ; 
which  was  the  utmost  to  which  the  Indian  title  amounted ;  and  to  this 
title  of  occupancy,  the  United  States  had  succeeded. 

The  title  which  the  United  States  had  thus  acquired,  they  were  bound 
by  the  compact  of  1802,  in  which  G-eorgia  had  ceded  her  western  lands  to 
the  United  States,  to  transfer  to  that  state :  whatever  right  was  acquired 
by  the  United  States,  immediately  inured  to  the  benefit  of  Georgia,  both 
because  they  had  no  right  without  the  consent  of  Georgia,  to  acquire 
domain  within  the  limits  of  that  state,  and  because  they  had  stipulated 
to  acquire  this  title  for  that  state.  The  supreme  court  had,  in  the  case 
mentioned,  decided  that  the  United   States  or  the  several  states,  had  a 

33 


514  TIIE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

title  to  all  the  Indian  lands  within  their  boundaries  :  and  in  the  case  of 
Fletcher  and  Peck,  they  had  declared,  with  regard  to  the  lands  in 
Georgia  occupied  by  the  Indians,  that  the  ultimate  fee  was  in  that  state. 
Whether  this  right  was  to  be  exercised  independently,  or  under  the 
supervision  of  the  federal  government,  the  attorney-general  said,  was  a 
question  which  would  depend  on  the  terms  and  validity  of  what  was  com- 
monly called  the  Indian  intercourse  act. 

A  bill  "  to  provide  for  an  exchange  of  lands  within  any  of  the  states 
or  territories,  and  for  their  removal  west  of  the  river  Mississippi,"  was 
reported  by  the  committee  on  Indian  affairs  of  each  house.  The  bill  of 
the  senate,  reported  on  the  22d  of  February,  1830,  by  Mr.  White,  of 
Tennessee,  was  taken  up  in  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  6th  of  April, 
and  was  debated  until  the  24th,  when  it  was  passed  to  the  third  read- 
ing, 28  to  19.  The  principal  speakers  in  favor  of  the  bill,  were,  Mr. 
White,  who  reported  it,  Mr.  Forsyth,  of  Georgia,  and  Mr.  Adams,  of 
Mississippi ;  and  Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  of  New  Jersey^  Mr.  Sprague,  of 
Maine,  and  Mr.  Robbins,  of  Rhode  Island,  in  opposition. 

Mr.  Frelinghuysen  moved  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  providing  that, 
until  the  Indians  should  choose  to  remove,  they  should  be  protected  in 
their  possessions  and  rights  of  government ;  and  that,  before  any  ex- 
change of  lands  should  be  made,  their  rights  in  the  premises  should  be 
guarantied  by  treaty.  And  again  at  the  close  of  the  debate,  he  moved 
a  proviso  that  nothing  contained  in  the  bill  should  "  be  so  construed  as 
to  authorize  the  departure  from,  or  non-observance  of  any  treaty  or  agree- 
ment now  subsisting  between  the  United  States  and  the  Cherokee 
Indians."     But  these  proposed  amendments  were  all  negatived. 

As  the  removal  of  the  Indians  was  a  favorite  measure  of  president 
Jackson,  and  as  his  policy  towards  them  was  alleged  to  be  a  departure 
from  that  which  had  been  observed  by  all  his  predecessors,  we  consider 
it  due  to  a  subject  of  so  much  importance,  and  to  the  parties  to  the  con- 
troversy, to  subjoin  a  sketch  of  the  principal  arguments  of  some  of  the 
leading  speakers  who  participated  in  the  debate. 

It  ought,  perhaps,  to  be  here  stated,  that  there  was  nothing  in  the 
bill  itself,  which  made  the  removal  of  the  Indians  compulsory.  The 
change  of  policy  consisted  in  conceding  to  the  states  the  right  of  soil, 
and  in  subjecting  the  Indians  to  the  government  of  the  states.  Pre- 
suming that,  if  reduced  to  the  alternative  of  submitting  to  the  govern- 
ment and  laws  of  Georgia  and  Alabama,  or  of  exchanging  their  lands, 
they  would  choose  the  latter,  the  bill  was  intended  to  meet  this  con- 
tingency. 

Mr.  White,  who  reported  the  bill,  but  of  whose  speech  we  have  no 
full  report,  is  said  to  have  conceded  that  the  faith  of  the  United  States 


DEBATE    OX    THE    ''MNDIAN    BILL."  515 

had  been  repeatedly  pledged  to  the  Clierokees  for  their  protection  ;  but 
he  contended  that  the  general  government  ought  not  to  perform  its  stipu- 
lations against  the  earlier  and  conflicting  claims  of  Georgia  ;  and  that,  if 
it  had  made  engagements  with  Georgia  and  the  Indians,  which  could 
not  both  be  fulfilled,  the  prior  engagement  should  be  performed,  and  com- 
pensation should  be  made  for  the  breach  of  the  other. 

Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  in  reply,  alluded  to  the  early  recognition  by  the 
government  of  the  rights  of  the  Indians  under  treaty  stipulations.  In 
a  communication  from  Gen.  Washington  to  the  senate,  August  22d, 
1789,  he  submitted  certain  leading  principles  of  policy  which  he  thought 
proper  to  pursue,  and  which  were  embodied  in  seven  distinct  interroga- 
tories ;  of  which  one  was,  "  whether  the  United  States  should  solemnly 
guaranty  to  the  Creeks  their  remaining  territory,  and  maintain  the  same, 
if  necessary,  by  a  line  of  military  posts;"  and  which  was  answered  in 
the  affirmative.  And  in  August,  1790,  in  another  communication  to  the 
same  body,  he  reminds  them  of  the  treaty  with  the  Cherokees,  at  Hope- 
well, in  November,  1785,  by  which  they  had  placed  themselves  under 
the  protection  of  the  United  States,  and  had  a  boundary  assigned  them. 
Intrusions  upon  their  lands  having  been  made  by  the  whites,  some  of 
whom  remained  after  having  been  enjoined  to  depart,  the  president  an- 
nounced his  determination  to  exert  his  constitutional  power  in  carrying 
into  execution  the  treaty  of  Hopewell,  unless  a  new  boundary  should  be 
arranged,  including  the  intrusive  settlements,  and  compensating  the 
Cherokees  for  the  territory  ceded.  A  new  b'^undary  was  arranged,  and 
solemnly  guarantied  by  a  new  treaty.  But  this  illustrious  precedent  of 
Washington  and  his  constitutional  advisers  was  not  regarded  by  the  pre- 
sent administration.  Treaties  were  declared  by  the  constitution  to  be 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land ;  and  the  president  and  all  other  depart- 
ments, officers  and  people,  were  bound  by  them. 

Mr.  F.  maintained  the  political  and  civil  rights  of  the  Indians,  first, 
on  the  ground  of  immemorial  possession,  as  the  original  tenants  of  the 
soil;  a  title  superior  to  that  of  the  British  crown,  or  any  subsequent 
claim.  Where  was  the  decree  or  ordinance  that  had  stripped  these  first 
lords  of  the  soil  ?  How  could  even  a  shadow  of  a  claim  to  soil  or  juris- 
diction be  derived  by  forming  a  collateral  issue  between  Georgia  and  the 
general  government  ?  Her  complaint  was  against  the  United  States  for 
encroachments  on  her  sovereignty.  The  Cherokees  were  no  parties  to 
this  issue ;  they  held  by  a  better  title  than  either  Georgia  or  the  union. 
They  had  treated  with  us,  it  was  true,  not,  however,  to  acquire  title  or 
jurisdiction — these  they  had  before ;  but  to  secure  protection  and  guar- 
anty for  subsisting  powers  and  privileges.  And  we  had,  in  all  our  inter- 
course with  them,  recognized  their  title.     All  our  acquisitions  of  territory 


516  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

had  been  obtained  by  purchase  and  cession.  We  had  also  regarded  them 
as  nations,  and  respected  their  forms  of  government. 

Mr.  F.  traced  our  history  in  these  connections.  As  early  as  1763, 
the  king  of  Great  Britain,  in  a  proclamation  issued  to  the  American 
colonies,  recognized  the  right  of  the  Indians  under  our  protection,  to  the 
undisturbed  "  possession  of  such  parts  of  our  territory  as  had  not  been 
ceded  to  or  purchased  by  us;"  and  enjoined  all  persons  who  had  "  either 
wilfully  or  inadvertently  seated  themselves  upon  such  lands,"  to  remove 
from  them.  In  1775,  on  the  eve  of  the  war,  we  had  approached  them  as 
independent  nations  having  power  to  form  alliances  with  or  against  us, 
for  the  purpose  of  engaging  the  continuance  of  their  friendship.  Their 
sovereignty  had  never  been  questioned  by  the  illustrious  statesmen  of 
that  period. 

After  the  revolution  (1783,)  congress  resolved  to  treat  with  the  tribes 
of  the  middle  and  northern  states  who  had  taken  up  arms  against  us, 
"  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  them  into  the  favor  and  protection  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  establishing  boundary  lines  of  property,  &c.,  and 
thereby  extinguishing,  as  far  as  possible,  all  occasion  for  future  animosi- 
ties, disquiet  and  contention."  Instead  of  the  claims  of  conquest,  the  rights 
of  war,  now  so  convenient  to  set  up,  congress  accorded  to  these  Indians 
the  character  of  foreign  nations,  tendered  them  our  favor  and  protection, 
and  adopted  measures  to  establish  boundary  lines  of  property  between 
our  citizens,  and  their  villages  and  hunting  grounds. 

In  ]  785,  was  made  the  treaty  of  Hopewell,  by  which  the  Cherokees 
agreed  to  restore  all  prisoners,  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  sub- 
jects of  their  allies,  to  their  entire  liberty ;  and  peace  was  to  be  given  to 
the  Cherokees,  and  they  were  to  be  received  under  the  protection  of  the 
United  States.  Here,  again,  was  a  negotiation  with  the  allies  of  our 
enemy  without  any  pretense  to  the  rights  of  a  conqueror.  Their  weak- 
ness did  not  destroy  their  sovereignty.  Yattel  gave  it  as  a  rule  of  pub- 
lic law,  "  that  one  community  might  be  bound  to  another  by  a  very 
unequal  alliance,  and  still  be  a  sovereign  state.  Though  a  weak  state, 
in  order  to  provide  for  its  safety,  should  place  itself  under  the  protection 
of  a  more  powerful  one ;  yet,  if  it  reserves  to  itself  the  right  of  govern- 
ing its  own  body,  it  ought  to  be  considered  as  an  independent  state." 
Never  had  the  southern  Indians  been  disturbed  in  the  enjoyment  of  this 
right,  until  the  late  legislation  by  the  states  of  Georgia,  Alabama  and 
Mississippi. 

This  treaty  also  established  territorial  domains  and  forbade  all  intru- 
sions upon  them.  A  citizen  of  the  United  States,  remaining  six  months 
on  the  Indian  lands,  forfeited  the  protection  of  the  government,  and 
might  be  punished  by  the  Indians. 


DEBATE   ON    THE 


517 


When,  in  1787,  Georgia  and  North  Carolina,  in  their  protests  to  con- 
gress, asserted  the  right  of  states  to  treat  with  the  Indian  tribes,  and  to 
obtain  grants  of  their  lands,  the  subject  was  referred  to  a  committee, 
who,  in  their  report,  argued  conclusively,  that,  to  yield  such  powers  to 
particular  states,  would  not  only  be  absurd  in  theory,  but  would  in  fact 
destroy  the  whole  system  of  Indian  relations.  After  this,  no  more  was 
heard  of  state  protests. 

Mr.  F.  referred  to  the  power  of  congress  to  "  regulate  commerce  with 
the  Indian  tribes,"  and  to  the  treaty-making  power  ;  in  the  exercise  of 
both  of  which  was  an  implied  recognition  of  them  as  foreign  viations. 
And  the  convention  of  framers,  to  compel  us  to  be  faithful  in  the  ob- 
servance of  treaties,  had  provided  that  they  should  be  the  "  supreme  law 
of  the  land,  any  thing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  state  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding." 

The  treaty  of  Holston  was  also  adverted  to,  the  preamble  to  which, 
commences  thus  :  "  The  parties  being  desirous  of  establishing  perma- 
nent peace  and  friendship  between  the  United  States  and  the  Cherokee 
nation,  and  to  remove  the  causes  of  war,  by  ascertaining  their  limits,  and 
making  other  necessary,  just,  and  friendly  arrangements,"  &c.,  (the 
parties  being  named,  "  with  full  powers  for  these  purposes,")  "  have 
agreed  to  the  following  articles,"  &c.  Here  again,  all  the  forms  of  a 
treaty  with  a  distinct  nation  were  observed.  Georgia  had  done  the 
same  herself,  in  1777,  where,  with  South  Carolina,  she  met  the  Creeks 
and  Cherokees  at  Dewitt's  Corner,  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  treaty 
with  them;  the  representatives  of  both  parties  appearing  with  full 
powers."  And  as  late  as  1825,  the  governor  of  Georgia  had  issued  a 
proclamation,  forbidding  intrusions,  by  the  citizens  of  that  state,  "  upon 
lands  occupied  by  the  Indians  within  its  limits ;"  and  adds  :  "  All  good 
citizens,  therefore,  pursuing  the  dictates  of  good  faith,  will  unite  in  en- 
forcing the  obligations  of  the  treaty  as  the  supreme  law,"  &c. — a  treaty, 
said  Mr.  F.,  with  the  very  Indians  now  asserted  by  Georgia  to  be  be- 
low the  reach  of  treaties. 

The  sentiments  of  Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Monroe,  were  also  cited 
to  sustain  the  position  he  had  assumed ;  but  we  have  not  room  to  pur- 
sue the  arguments  of  this  speech. 

Mr.  Forsyth  followed  Mr.  Frelinghuysen  in  a  long  and  able  reply. 
He  said,  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  of  Galphinton,  of  November,  1785, 
from  which  the  gentleman  had  himself  quoted,  was  as  follows :  "  The 
said  Indians,  (the  Creeks,)  for  themselves,  and  all  the  tribes  or  towns 
within  their  respective  nations,  within  the  limits  of  the  state  of  Georgia, 
have  been,  and  now  are,  members  of  the  same,  since  the  day  and  date 
of  the  constitution  of  the  said  state  of  Georgia."     He  thought  this  article 


518  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

broad  enough  to  sustain  the  claim  of  the  state  to  sovereignty  over  the 
Creeks.  If  they  were  members  of  the  state,  as  they  had,  acknowledged 
themselves,  what  had  become  of  their  separate  and  independent  character 
as  a  nation  or  tribe  ? 

The  treaty  of  Dewitt's  Corner,  of  May,  1777,  with  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia,  settled  the  question  with  the  Cherokees.  The  first  article 
was  in  these  words  :  "  The  Cherokee  nation  acknowledged  that  the  troops, 
during  the  last  summer,  repeatedly  defeated  their  forces,  victoriously 
penetrated  through  their  lower  towns,  middle  settlements,  and  valleys ; 
and  quietly  and  unopposed,  built,  held,  and  continue  to  occupy,  the  fort 
at  Esenneca,  thereby  did  effect  and  maintain  the  conquest  of  all  the 
Cherokee  lands,  east  of  the  Unicaye  mountain ;  and  to  and  for  their 
people  did  acquire,  possess,  and  yet  continue  to  hold,  in  and  over  the 
said  lands,  all  and  singular,  the  rights  incidental  to  conquest ;  and 
the  Cherokee  nation,  in  consequence  thereof,  do  cede  the  said  lands  to 
the  said  people,  the  people  of  South  Carolina."  The  Cherokees  admit- 
ted the  right  of  South  Carolina,  by  conquest,  to  all  the  land  in  the 
valley  below  the  Unicaye  mountains,  which  were  in  Tennessee,  beyond 
the  territorial  claims  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia;  and  no  subse- 
quent change  in  the  political  condition  of  the  United  States,  could  be 
used  as  a  pretext  for  denying  to  Georgia  the  claim  to  sovereignty  over 
the  Cherokees  witJiin  her  limits. 

The  treaty  of  Hopewell,  beginning  with  the  words,  "  The  United 
States  give  peace  to  all  the  Cherokees,  and  receive  them  into  their  favor 
and  protection,"  surrendered  to  congress  the  power  of  legislating  for 
them  at  discretion,  thus  :  "  For  the  benefit  and  comfort  of  the  Indians, 
and  for  the  prevention  of  injuries  or  oppressions  on  the  part  of  the 
citizens  or  Indians,  the  United  States,  in  congress  assembled,  shall  have 
the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of  regulating  trade  with  the  Indians,  and 
managing  all  their  affairs  in  such  manner  as  they  shall  think  proper." 
This  treaty,  with  its  burthens  and  benefits,  fell  to  the  new  government 
when  it  was  established  under  the  constitution.  It  might  be  said  that, 
because  the  United  States  had  sovereignty  over  the  Cherokees,  it  did 
not  follow  that  Georgia  had  it.  But  the  power  of  legislation  over  the 
Cherokees  acquired  by  the  United  States,  had  been  transferred  to 
Georgia  by  the  compact  of  1802.  Georgia  ceded  to  the  United  States 
all  her  right  to  the  jurisdiction  and  soil  of  the  lands  lying  west  of  the 
Chattahoochie,  as  far  as  Mississippi,  &c.  ;  and  the  United  States  ceded 
to  the  state  of  Georgia  whatever  claim,  right,  or  title  they  might  have 
to  the  jurisdiction  and  soil  of  any  lands,  lying  within  the  United  States, 
east  of  the'  eastern  boundary  of  the  territory  ceded  by  Georgia  to  the 
United  States,  and  south  of  the  states  of  Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  and 


DEBATE    ON    THE    "INDIAN    BILL."  510 

South  Carolina.  If  gentlemen  found  fault  with  this  transfer  of  power 
to  Georgia,  the  justice  of  it  must  be  settled  by  the  United  States  and 
the  Cherokees.  Mr.  F.  thought  it  strange  that  the  gentleman  from  New 
Jersey,  when  he  quoted  from  these  same  treaties,  had  not  seen  the  pro- 
visions to  which  he  had  directed  his  attention. 

Mr.  Forsyth  said  he  was  willing  to  meet  the  gentleman  on  the  con- 
struction of  these  treaties ;  and  invited  him  to  present  distinct  resolu- 
tions, affirming  that  the  Indians  were  independent,  beyond  the  control 
of  the  states ;  that  the  fee  simple  of  the  land  they  occupied  was  theirs  ; 
that  neither  the  general  government  nor  the  states  could  regulate  their 
aflPairs ;  that  treaties  could  only  be  made  with  them  by  the  United  States. 
The  legislation  of  the  states  and  of  the  United  States,  the  judicial  de- 
cisions of  both  the  federal  and  state  tribunals,  all  proved  these  positions 
untenable.  Georgia,  in  exercising  jurisdiction  over  the  Indians  within 
her  territory,  only  followed  the  example  of  the  New  England  states, 
New  York,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Maryland ; 
and  while  the  latter  escaped  censure,  the  former  had  drawn  upon  her- 
self torrents  of  invective  and  reproach.  This  was  to  be  attributed  to 
the  missionaries  and  their  friends  and  patrons ;  to  the  few  half-breeds 
and  white  men  in  whose  hands  is  the  Cherokee  government,  and  who 
regulate  the  affairs  and  control  all  the  funds  of  the  tribe,  and  conduct 
a  press  supported  by  these  funds.  Another  powerful  agent  was  the 
delegation  which  the  Cherokee  government  had  at  Washington,  to  de- 
fend the  independence  of  the  tribe.  And  knowing  the  value  of  money, 
the  council  had  authorized  the  delegates  to  pay  out  of  the  treasury  for 
any  aid  or  advice  they  might  wish  to  obtain. 

The  senator  from  New  Jersey  had  asked,  why  Georgia  had  acquiesced 
in  the  exercise  of  the  treaty-making  power  by  the  federal  government. 
Georgia,  having  imposed  upon  the  United  States  the  obligation  to  ex- 
tinguish the  Indian  title,  did  not  consider  herself  authorized  to  interfere 
in  the  manner  in  which  that  obligation  was  performed,  s  After  a  lapse 
of  twenty-eight  years,  a  large  territory  still  remained  unoccupied  by  the 
Indians  :  and  was  it  surprising  that  the  Georgians  should  inquire  why 
it  was  that  this  compact  had  not  been  fully  and  faithfully  executed  ? 

Mr.  F.  complained  of  the  acts  of  the  general  government.  Treaties 
had  been  made  by  Georgia  with  the  Indians  before  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution.  Their  validity  having  been  disputed.  Gen.  Washington, 
the  first  president,  asked  the  advice  of  the  senate  on  these  points  :  Should 
an  inquiry  be  made  into  the  circumstances  under  which  these  treaties 
were  held?  If  fairly  held,  should  they  be  enforced  by  the  union  ?  If 
not  valid,  should  they  be  made  the  bases  of  new  arrangements  with  the 
southern  tribes  ?     These  inquiries  were  answered  in  the  affirmative. 


520  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Investigation  was  made  ;  the  commissioners  of  the  United  States  reported 
that  these  compacts  had  been  made  with  the  usual  formalities  and  fair- 
ness of  Indian  treaties.  But  they  were  not  enforced  ;  an  arrangement 
was  preferred  ;  and  territory  previously  surrendered  to  the  state  by  the 
Indians,  was  restored  to  them  as  hunting  grounds :  and  the  intercourse 
act  of  1790  was  passed  to  enforce  this  violation  of  state  sovereignty. 
Georgia  came  here  to  protest  against  this  new  treaty,  and  against  the 
law  of  1790,  as  equally  repugnant  to  her  claims  and  to  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

In  1817,  through  the  agency  of  Gen.  Jackson,  a  contract  was  made 
with  the  Cherokees,  providing  for  their  removal  from  Georgia ;  a  con- 
tract made  at  their  instance,  and  for  the  accommodation  of  that  portion 
of  them  who  occupied  the  lower  towns,  lying  in  Georgia,  and  desired  to 
remove  to  the  west  to  continue  the  hunter's  life ;  those  of  the  upper 
towns,  lying  out  of  Georgia,  wishing  to  remain  where  they  were.  The 
contract  was  but  partially  executed  ;  the  interests  of  Georgia  were  sacri- 
ficed to  the  policy  of  the  federal  government.  The  Cherokees  who 
wished  to  remain,  threw  obstacles  in  the  way  of  emigration.  Without  appa- 
rent reasonable  cause  the  contract  of  1817  was  abandoned,  and  that  of 
1819  substituted.  The  Cherokees  remained ;  and  the  idea  was  held  out  to 
the  tribe  of  a  permanent  residence,  with  a  view  to  their  civilization. 
This  new  arrangement  led  to  the  belief  that  Mr.  Monroe's  administra- 
tion was  not  disposed  to  act  fairly  towards  the  state. 

Mr.  F.  said  he  had  been  surprised  to  hear  the  senator  from  Nev7 
Jersey  quote  from  the  royal  proclamation  of  1763,  to  prove  that  Great 
Britain  had  never  asserted  the  right  to  legislate  for  the  savages,  or  to 
appropriate  their  lands  without  a  previous  purchase.  It  asserted,  1st. 
The  sovereignty  and  dominion  of  Great  Britain  over  the  Indians  and 
Indian  territory  ;  2d.  That  the  Indians  were,  as  subjects,  under  the 
protection  of  the  crown  ;  3d.  That  the  right  to  appropriate  the  land  oc- 
cupied by  them  resided  in  the  crown.  It  contained  grants  to  the  whites, 
and  reservations  to  the  Indians  as  hunting  grounds.  The  laws  and 
usages  of  the  colonies  threw  additional  light  on  the  subject.  In  war, 
the  Indians  had  not  been  treated  as  a  civilized  enemy.  The  males  had 
been  put  to  death  on  the  principle  of  retaliation ;  and  the  women  and 
children  sold  into  slavery  for  the  benefit  of  the  captors.  In  some  states, 
rewards  had  been  ofi'ered  for  captives,  and  dogs  had  been  trained  for 
pursuing  Indian  rebels. 

On  the  declaration  of  independence,  the  authority  previously  exer 
cised  by  Great  Britain  was  assumed  by  the  states,  respectively,  within 
their  limits.  In  the  war,  the  Indians  were  the  allies  of  Great  Britain, 
and  were  conquered.     The  right  of  sovereignty  and  domain  which  we 


DEBATE    ON    THE    "INDIAN   BILL."  .521 

had  acquired,  covered  the  claim  of  legislation  over  them,  and  of  title  to 
the  land  they  occupied.  Our  independence  was  acknowledged ;  and  the 
treaty  of  peace  was  formed  with  the  confederation ;  and  there  was 
nothing  in  the  articles  of  the  confederation  wbich  deprived  the  individ- 
ual states  of  any  portion  of  their  sovereignty  over  Indians  or  Indian 
lands. 

Mr.  Sprague  said,  that  we  had  with  the  Cherokees  not  less  than  fif- 
teen treaties.  The  first  was  made  in  1785,  and  the  last  in  1819.  By 
several  of  them,  we  have  guarantied  to  the  Cherokees,  1st.  Their  sepa- 
rate existence  as  a  political  community ;  2d.  Undisturbed  possession 
and  full  enjoyment  of  their  lands  within  certain  defined  boundaries ; 
3d.  The  protection  of  the  United  States  against  all  interference  with 
or  encroachments  upon  their  rights  by  any  people,  state,  or  nation. 
For  these  promises  on  our  part,  we  received  ample  consideration,  by 
the  restoration  and  establishing  of  peace ;  by  large  cessions  of  territory ; 
by  the  promise,  on  their  part,  to  treat  with  no  other  state  or  nation ; 
and  other  important  concessions.  The  treaties  had  been  made  with  all 
the  forms  and  solemnities  necessary  to  make  them  binding.  The  Che- 
rokees now  come  to  us  and  say,  that  their  rights  are  threatened  by 
Georgia  and  Alabama,  and  ask  for  the  promised  protection. 

The  treaty  of  Dewitt's  Corner  had  been  cited,  by  which  the  Chero- 
kees had  acknowledged  that  a  portion  of  their  country  had  been  con- 
quered ;  and  the  same  had  been  ceded  to  South  Carolina.  It  had  not 
been,  for  at  least  one  generation,  claimed  or  occupied  by  the  Indians. 
What  right,  he  asked,  could  this  confer  on  Georgia  to  lands  now  owned 
and  possessed  by  the  Cherokees  ?  This  right  had  also  been  claimed  on 
the  ground  of  the  transfer,  by  the  United  States,  of  all  their  power  and 
claims  under  the  treaty  of  Hopewell,  to  Georgia,  by  the  compact  of 
1802.  But  did  this  relinquishment  of  the  right  of  the  United  States 
to  the  soil  and  jurisdiction  to  the  lands^  purport  to  transfer  a  preexist- 
ing treaty  with  the  Indians  ?  If  it  had  been  even  so  intended,  it  could 
not  have  been  transferred.  A  guardian  could  not  transfer  his  rights 
and  duties  at  pleasure.  By  the  constitution,  Georgia  had  given  to  the 
United  States  the  right  to  legislate  in  certain  cases  over  her  citizens  for 
their  benefit ;  for  example,  to  organize,  arm,  discipline,  and  call  forth 
her  militia.  Could  the  United  States  transfer  this  right  to  South  Caro- 
lina ?  This  right  was  required  to  be  exercised  by  the  United  States 
"m  congress  assembled.''^  Could  we,  without  the  consent  of  the  other 
partyj  strike  out  these  words,  and  insert,  the  legislature  of  Georgia  d 
Again ;  to  see  that  this  power  was  properly  exercised,  the  treaty  gave 
the  Cherokees  "  the  right  to  send  a  deputy  of  their  choice,  whenever 
they  think  fit,  to  congress?''  Should  he  come  here  to  watch  over  the 
legislation  at  Milledgeville  ? 


522  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

But,  thougli  this  power  were  transferable,  it  must  be  subject  tc  the 
restrictions  and  limitations  expressed  in  the  treaty;  among  which  were 
these  :  1st.  That  the  Cherokees  should  continue  to  exist  as  a  distinct 
political  community,  under  the  protection  of  the  United  States  ;  2d. 
That  they  should  enjoy  the  undisturbed  possession  of  their  lands;  3d. 
That  the  power  to  manage  "  their  affairs"  should  be  exercised  "  for  the 
benefit  and  comfort  of  the  Indians;  and  for  the  prevention  of  injuries 
and  oppressions."  But  this  did  not  give  even  the  United  States  the 
right  to  drive  them  from  their  lands,  or  to  strike  the  nation  out  of 
existence ;  and,  instead  of  managing  their  affairs  for  their  benefit,  to 
annihilate  them  as  a  body  politic. 

The  gentleman  had  passed  over  in  silence  a  most  important  event,  the 
treaty  of  Holston,  made  in  1791,  by  which  the  United  States  had  again 
promised  to  protect  the  Cherokees  in  their  rights  as  a  nation,  in  the 
following  language  :  "  The  United  States  solemnly  guaranty  to  the 
Cherokee  nation  all  their  lands  not  hereby  ceded."  If  any  right  had 
been  transferred  to  Georgia,  it  was  such  only  as  existed  at  the  time,  and 
subject,  of  course,  to  the  stipulations  of  the  preexisting  treat}^  We 
were  bound  to  see  our  treaties  fulfilled.  The  Indians  had  inquired  of 
us  whether  we  would  perform  our  promise  of  protection.  Should  we 
say  we  had  conveyed  that  promise  to  another — to  Georgia  ?  Would 
they  not  reply,  that  they  had  purchased  our  guaranty,  and  the  protec- 
tion of  our  strong  arm,  for  the  .very  purpose  of  securing  them  against 
the  encroachment  of  their  white  neighbors  in  that  state  ? 

As  to  the  compact  of  1802,  between  the  United  States  and  Georgia, 
the  Cherokees  not  being  parties  to  it,  it  could  not  impair  their  rights, 
nor  confer  upon  others  any  claim  against  them.  Besides,  the  compact 
expressly  recognized  the  Indian  title;  and  the  United  States  agreed  to 
extinguish  it  only  when  it  could  be  done  "  peaceably  "  and  on  "  reason- 
able terms." 

It  had  also  been  argued,  that,  before  the  revolution,  Great  Britain 
had  had  jurisdiction  over  the  aborigines,  and  the  sole  right  of  treating 
with  them,  and  that  this  power  had  been  wrested  from  her  by  conquest 
during  the  war,  and  forever  abandoned  by  the  treaty  of  peace  in  1783. 
If  it  had  been  obtained  by  conquest,  it  must  have  belonged  to  the  con- 
querors. And  who  were  the  conquerors  ?  The  United  States,  who  were 
also  a  party  to  the  treaty  of  peace.  It  was  upon  this  ground  that  New 
Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  and  other  states  so  strongly  insisted  that 
the  crown  lands,  which  had  been  acquired  by  the  common  arm,  and  at 
the  common  expense,  belonged  of  right  to  the  common  fund.  They  suc- 
ceeded in  their  demand.  The  several  states  having  such  lands  succes- 
sively ceded  them  to  the  general  government,  Virginia  taking  the  lead. 


DEBATE    ON    THE     ''  INDIAN    BILL."  523 

Mr.  S.  also  combated  the  pretension  of  Georgia,  that,  on  becoming 
independent,  in  1776,  she  had  succeeded  to  the  right  which  Great  Brit- 
ain had  acquired  by  discovery.  Discovery,  he  said,  conferred  no  claim 
or  right  against  the  natives — the  persons  discovered — but  only  against 
future  discoverers.  It  was  said,  that  the  rights  derived  from 
this  source  had  been  established  and  defined  in  Europe,  upon  the 
first  discovery  of  this  country.  True  ;  but  it  was  by  the  mutual  under- 
standing and  agreement  of  the  nations  of  that  continent  only,  in  order 
to  regulate  their  conduct  among  themselves.  The  sovereign  who  should 
find  a  country,  theretofore  unknown,  should  have  the  exclusive  right  to 
the  benefits  of  the  discovery,  and  to  conduct  toward  the  aboriginal  inhab- 
itants according  to  his  conscience  and  ability. 

The  advocates  of  the  bill  had  alleged,  that  the  word  treaty,  in  the 
constitution,  did  not  mean  a  compact  or  contract  with  the  Indian  tribes. 
Mr.  S.  referred  to  a  large  number  of  instances  to  show  that  contracts 
with  the  Indians  by  Great  Britian,  from  the  first  settlement  of  the 
country,  as  well  as  those  made  since,  under  the  confederation  and  the 
constitution,  had  been  called  treaties.  He  had  counted  no  less  than  one 
hundred  and  twenty-four  Indian  treaties,  formed  under  the  present  con- 
stitution. 

The  following  extracts  from  a  speech  of  Gen.  "Washington  to  the 
Seneca  Indians,  in  1790,  which  were  read  by  Mr.  S.,  would  show  both 
the  meaning  of  the  word  treaty,  and  the  binding  force  of  the  contract  to 
which  it  was  applied,  as  understood  by  Washington. 

"  I,  the  president  of  the  United  States,  by  my  own  mouth,  and  by  a 
written  speech  signed  with  my  own  hand,  and  sealed  with  the  seal  of  the 
United  States,  speak  to  the  Seneca  nation. 

"  The  general  government  only  has  the  power  to  treat  with  the  In- 
dian nations,  and  any  treaty  formed  without  its  authority,  will  not  be 
binding. 

"  Here,  then,  is  the  security  for  the  remainder  of  your  lands.  No 
state  nor  person  can  purchase  your  lands,  unless  at  some  public  treaty 
held  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States.  The  general  government 
will  never  consent  to  your  being  defrauded  ;  but  it  will  protect  you  in  all 
your  just  rights. 

"  But  your  great  object  seems  to  be  the  security  of  your  remaining 
lands  ;  and  I  have,  therefore,  upon  this  point,  meant  to  be  sufficiently 
strong  and  clear. 

"  In  future  you  can  not  be  defrauded  of  your  lands.  You  possess  the 
right  to  sell,  and  the  right  of  refusing  to  sell  your  lands.  The  United 
States  must  be  present  when  you  sell,  and  will  be  your  security  that  you 
shall  not  be  defrauded  in  the  bargain  you  shall  make. 


524  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

"  You  now  know,  that  all  the  lands  secured  to  you  by  the  treaty  of  Fort 
Stanwix,  excepting  such  parts  as  you  may  since  have  fairly  sold,  are 
yours,  and  that  only  your  own  acts  can  convey  them  away.  Speak,  there- 
fore, your  wishes  on  the  subject  of  tilling  the  ground.  The  United  States 
will  be  happy  to  afford  you  every  assistance  in  the  only  business  which 
will  add  to  your  numbers  and  happiness. 

"  The  United  States  will  be  true  and  faithful  to  their  engagements." 

Reference  was  made  to  the  language  as  well  as  the  acts  of  the  authori- 
ties and  representatives  of  the  states  upon  which  it  was  asserted  these 
treaties  were  not  obligatory,  to  show  that  they  had  themselves  considered 
them  binding. 

The  bill  passed  by  the  senate,  was  taken  up  in  the  house,  and  committed 
to  the  committee  of  the  whole,  on  the  26th  of  April,  1830.  The  debate 
commenced  on  the  13th  of  May,  and  closed  on  the  26th.  Speeches  in 
favor  of  the  bill  were  made  by  Mr.  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  chairman  of  the 
committee  on  Indian  affairs,  and  Messrs.  Lumpkin,  Foster,  Wilde,  La- 
mar, and  Wayne,  all  of  Georgia ;  against  it,  by  Messrs.  Storrs,  of  New 
York,  Ellsworth  and  Huntington,  of  Connecticut,  Evans,  of  Maine, 
Johns,  of  Delaware,  Bates  and  Everett,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Test,  of 
Indiana.  In  the  house,  as  well  as  in  the  senate,  the  speeches  were  mainly 
argumentative*  some  of  them,  however,  containing  fine  specimens  of 
eloquence. 

The  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill,  was  103  in  favor  of,  and  97  against 
it.  It  had  received  some  amendments  in  the  house,  which  were  concur- 
red in  by  the  senate. 

The  act  appropriated  $500,000  for  carrying  its  provisions  into  effect. 
It  provided  for  an  exchange  of  lands ;  those  to  which  they  should 
remove,  to  be  guarantied  to  the  Indians  ;  but  if  the  Indians  should  be- 
come extinct,  or  should  abandon  the  lands,  they  were  to  revert  to  the 
United  States.  The  Indians  were  to  be  paid  for  the  improvements  on 
the  lands  they  occupied ;  to  be  assisted  in  their  removal ;  and  to  be  sup- 
ported for  a  year  thereafter. 

A  treaty  with  the  Choctaw  Indians  was  concluded  on  the  27th  of  Sep- 
tember, 1830,  by  the  secretary  of  war  and  Gen.  Coffee.  The  Indians 
ceded  their  lands,  and  agreed  to  remove  beyond  the  Mississippi,  within 
three  years.  Those  who  chose  to  remain,  as  citizens  of  Georgia,  were  to 
have  reservations  of  land  for  their  use,  and  after  residing  upon  them  for 
five  years,  were  to  possess  them  in  fee.  The  country  was  to  be  surveyed 
as  soon  as  the  government  pleased,  but  no  sale  made  previous  to  their 
removal ;  and  intruders  were  to  be  kept  out.  The  government  was  also 
to  use  its  good  offices  with  the  state  of  Mississippi  to  suspend  the  opera- 
tion of  her  laws,  and  with  Alabama  not  to  extend  her  laws  into  the  na- 


THE    CHEROKEES     APPEAL.  ,  525 

tion.  Thoy  were  to  be  governed  in  their  western  residence  by  laws  of 
their  own,  which,  however,  were  not  to  be  inconsistent  with  those  of  the 
United  States. 

The  Cherokees  adhered  to  their  determination  not  to  emigrate,  and  on 
the  1st  of  June,  1830,  they  found  themselves  under  the  operation  of  the 
laws  of  Georgia.  On  the  1 1th  of  September,  the  Cherokee  Phosnix,  (the 
Indian  paper,)  contained  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  of  Cherokees,  to 
which  was  appended  a  very  pathetic  appeal  to  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  complaining  of  the  infringements  upon  their  rights  by  the  state  of 
Georgia,  and  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  protection  of  the  government,  on 
the  part  of  the  executive  However  variant  may  have  been  the  opinions 
of  the  people  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  Indians,  there  could  scarcely 
have  been  a  difference  of  feeling  on  the  perusal  of  their  appeal,  a  few 
paragraphs  of  which  we  copy  : 

"  People  of  America,  where  shall  we  look  ?  Republicans,  we  appeal 
to  you.  Christians,  we  appeal  to  you.  We  need  the  exertion  of  your 
strong  arm.  We  need  the  utterance  of  your  commanding  voice.  We 
need  the  aid  of  your  prevailing  prayers.  In  times  past,  your  compas- 
sions^  yearned  over  our  moral  desolations,  and  the  misery  which  was 
spreading  amongst  us,  through  the  failure  of  game,  our  ancient  resource. 
The  cry  of  our  wretchedness  reached  your  hearts ;  you  supplied  us  with 
the  implements  of  husbandry  and  domestic  industry,  which  enabled  us 
to  provide  food  and  clothing  for  ourselves.  You  sent  us  instruction  in 
letters  and  the  true  religion,  which  has  chased  away  much  of  our  mental 
and  moral  darkness. 

"  Your  wise  president  Jefferson  took  much  pains  to  instruct  us  in  the 
science  of  civilized  government,  and  recommended  the  government  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  several  states,  as  models  for  our  imitation.  He 
urged  us  to  industry  and  the  acquisition  of  property.  His  letter  was 
read  in  our  towns ;  and  we  received  it  as  the  counsel  of  a  friend.  We 
commenced  farming.  We  commenced  improving  our  government;  and, 
by  gradual  advances,  we  have  attained  our  present  station.  But  our  ven- 
erable father  Jefferson  never  intimated  that,  whenever  we  should  arrive 
at  a  certain  point  in  the  science  of  government,  and  the  knowledge  of 
the  civilized  arts,  then  our  rights  should  be  forfeited ;  our  treaties  be- 
come obsolete  ;  the  protection  guarantied  by  them  withdrawn ;  our  pro- 
perty confiscated  to  lawless  banditti,  and  our  necks  placed  under  the  foot 
of  Georgia. 

"  It  has  been  frequently  asserted,  that  we  are  willing,  and  even  desi- 
rous to  go  on  to  the  west.  We  assure  our  friends  that  it  is  not  so.  We 
love  our  homes  ;  we  love  our  families ;  we  love  to  dwell  by  our  fathers' 
graves.     We  love  to  think  that  this  land  is  our  great  Creator's  gift  to 


526  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

them ;  that  he  has  permitted  us  to  enjoy  it  after  them ;  and  that  our  off- 
spring are  preparing  to  succeed  us  in  the  inheritance.  This  land  is  our 
last  refuge  ;  and  it  is  our  own.  Our  title  to  it  has  no  defect  but  the  in- 
feriority of  our  physical  force ;  and  this  defect  is  amply  supplied  by  our 
compacts  with  the  powerful  and  magnanimous  government  of  the  United 
States.  *  *  *  Much  has  been  done  against  us.  Promises,  threats,  and 
stratagems,  have  been  employed.  But  we  are  still  unshaken  in  our  at- 
tachment to  the  land  of  our  birth  ;  and  we  do  solemnly  protest  against 
the  exercise  of  oppressive  measures  to  effect  our  removal." 

They  had  been  ordered  by  the  commanding  officer  of  the  United 
States  troops  to  desist  from  digging  for  gold.  In  a  letter  of  reply,  they 
said  :  "  The  Cherokees  respect  the  government  and  its  officer ;  but  so 
firmly  convinced  are  they  of  their  rights  and  their  privileges,  that  they 
are  still  disposed  to  continue  their  mining  operations,  and  are  perfectly 
resigned  to  such  fate  as  the  consequence  of  their  honest  labor  upon  their 
own  lands  may  consign  them  to,  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States." 

In  October,  Gov.  Gilmer,  of  Georgia,  in  a  lett'er  to  the  president,  re- 
quested him  to  withdraw  from  the  Indian  territory  the  United  States' 
troops  that  had  been  sent  there  to  enforce  the  non-intercourse  law  within 
the  limits  of  the  state,  as  it  was  "  considered  inconsistent  with  the  rights 
of  jurisdiction  now  exercised  by  its  authorities."  Before  the  letter 
reached  the  president,  in  view  of  the  approach  of  winter,  the  troops  had 
been  ordered  to  retire  into  winter  quarters ;  of  which  the  governor  was 
officially  informed. 

Having  failed  in  their  appeals  to  the  government  for  protection,  the 
Cherokees  took  measures  to  have  their  case  submitted  to  the  supreme 
court  of  the  United  States.  In  June,  1830,  Mr.  Wirt  addressed  a  let- 
ter to  Gov.  Gilmer,  informing  him  that  he  had  been  professionally  con- 
sulted by  the  Cherokees  as  to  their  rights  under  their  treaties  with  the 
United  States,  and  suggested  that  a  decision  might  be  expedited,  by 
making  a  case,  by  consent,  before  the  supreme  court.  This  the  governor 
declined.  In  his  reply,  he  ascribed  the  unwillingness  of  the  remaining 
Cherokees  to  join  those  of  the  tribe  who  had  removed,  to  an  improper 
interference  on  the  part  of  their  friends,  by  whom  they  had  been  per- 
suaded that  the  right  of  self-government  could  be  secured  to  them  by  the 
supreme  court.  He  said :  "  So  long  as  the  Cherokees  retained  their 
primitive  habits,  no  disposition  was  shown  by  the  states  under  the  pro- 
tection of  whose  government  they  resided,  to  make  them  subject  to  their 
laws.  Such  policy  would  hare  been  cruel ;  because  it  would  have  inter- 
fered with  their  habits  of  life,  and  the  enjoyments  peculiar  to  Indian 
people."  He  ascribed  the  change  in  their  condition  to  the  power  of  the 
whites    among    them;    and   it   was   this   state    of     things    that     had 


OPINION    OF    THE    SUPREME   COURT.  527 

rendered  it  obligatory  upon  Georgia  to  vindicate  her  povereignty  by 
abolisbing  the  Cherokee  government.  "No  one,"  said  he,  "knows 
better  than  yourself,  that  the  governor  would  grossly  violate  his  duty, 
and  exceed  his  authority,  by  complying  with  such  a  suggestion,  (that  of 
making  up  an  "  agreed  case"  before  the  court,)  and  that  both  the  letter 
and  the  spirit  of  the  powers  conferred  by  the  constitution  upon  the 
supreme  court,  forbid  its  adjudging  such  a  case." 

George  Tassels,  an  Indian,  having  committed  a  homicide  in  resisting 
the  execution  of  the  laws  of  Georgia,  was  tried,  convicted  of  murder, 
and  sentenced  to  be  hanged.  Before  the  day  fixed  for  the  execution  of 
the  sentence,  the  state  of  Georgia,  pursuant  to  a  writ  of  error  obtained 
from  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  dated  the  12th  of  Decem- 
ber, was  cited  to  appear  in  January,  and  show  cause  why  judgment 
against  Tassels  should  not  be  corrected.  The  governor  communicated 
the  fact  to  the  house  of  representatives,  and  the  subject  was  referred  to 
a  committee,  who  reported  resolutions,  declaring  the  interference  of  the 
chief-justice  in  the  administration  of  the  criminal  laws  of  Georgia  to  be 
a  flagrant  violation  of  her  rights  ;  enjoining  all  state  officers  to  disregard 
all  such  mandates  of  the  court ;  requiring  the  governor,  by  all  force  and 
means  at  his  command,  to  resist  and  repel  all  invasions  upon  the  admin- 
istration of  the  laws  ;  refusing  to  become  a  party  to  the  case ;  and  au- 
thorizing the  governor  to  order  the  sheriff  to  secure  the  execution  of 
Tassels,  which  was  accordingly  done. 

In  March  following,  (1831,)  a  motion  was  made  in  the  supreme  court 
in  the  name  of  the  Cherokee  nation,  praying  for  a  process  of  subpoena 
against  the  state  of  Georgia,  and  for  an  injunction  to  restrain  the  state 
from  executing  her  laws  within  the  Cherokee  territory,  on  the  ground 
that  the  execution  of  such  laws  in  the  Indian  territory  was  repugnant  to 
the  constitution,  laws  and  treaties  of  the  United  States.  The  question 
was  most  ably  arguedrby  John  Sergeant  and  William  Wirt,  in  favor  of 
the  motion.  The  opinion  of  the  court  was  adverse  to  the  application ; 
the  court  disclaiming  jurisdiction  in  the  case,  on  the  ground  that  the  Cher- 
okee nation  was  not  fi,  foreign  nation  in  the  sense  of  the  constitution. 

The  court  admitted  the  character  of  the  Cherokees  to  be  that  of  a 
state,  a  distinct  political  society,  capable  of  managing  its  own  affairs, 
and  governing  itself,  of  maintaining  the  relations  of  peace  and  war ;  of 
being  responsible  for  any  violation  of  their  engagements ;  or  for  any 
aggressions  committed  on  citizens  of  the  United  States.  They  had  been 
uniformly  so  recognized  by  our  treaties  with  them  and  by  our  laws.  The 
counsel  had  shown  that  they  were  not  a  state  of  the  union,  and  had 
insisted  that  they  were  individually  aliens,  not  owing  allegiance  to  the 
United  States ;  and  that  an  aggregate  of  aliens  must  be  a  foreign  state. 


528  THE   AMERICAN   STATESMAN. 

But  the  court,  though  it  conceded  to  the  Indian  tribes  the  attributes  of 
a  foreign  nation,  decided  that  they  were  not  so  recognized  by  the  con- 
stitution ;  but  were  to  be  considered  as  domestic,  dependent  nations,  in 
a  state  of  pupilage  to  the  general  government,  and  holding  their  terri- 
tory by  right  of  occupancy.  [A  decision  of  the  court  as  to  the  rights 
of  the  Indians  was  subsequently  given  in  a  case  of  acknowledged  juris- 
diction, which  will  be  found  in  a  succeeding  chapter.  ] 


CHAPTER  XLII. 

WEST  INDIA  TRADE. MR.  m'LANE's  ARRANGEMENT. JOHN  RANDOLPH  S 

MISSION    TO    RUSSIA. 

The  history,  in  a  preceding  chapter,  of  our  protracted  difficulties  with 
Great  Britain  in  regulating  the  colonial  trade,  was  brought  down  to  the 
year  1826,  and  left  us  in  possession  of  the  trade  with  her  "West  India 
colonies  through  the  Danish,  Swedish,  and  other  neutral  islands.  [See 
West  India  Trade.]  It  has  been  observed,  that  the  loss  of  the  direct 
trade  with  the  British  islands,  to  the  great  injury  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  was  charged  upon  the  preceding  administration  ;  that  they 
had  neglected  to  accept,  as  2i privilege^  advantages  which  they  had  persisted 
in  claiming  as  a  rz^A^;  and  that  they  might  have  obtained  them  by 
legislation,  had  they  not  relied  too  much  on  negotiation.  It  was  to  be 
expected,  therefore,  that  the  new  administration  would  spare  no  effort 
to  retrieve  what  had  been  lost  by  their  predecessors.  In  this  the  public 
expectation  was  not  ^disappointed. 

Mr.  M'Lane,  the  new  minister  to  England,  received  special  instruc- 
tions in  relation  to  the  conduct  of  the  negotiation  on  this  "  vexed  ques- 
tion "  of  British  colonial  trade.  He  was  directed  to  represent,  that  the 
American  people,  in  effecting  a  change  of  administration,  had  testified 
their  disapproval  of  the  acts  of  the  late  administration,  and  that  the 
claims  set  up  by  them  which  had  caused  the  interruption  of  the  trade 
in  question,  would  not  be  urged :  that  is  to  say,  that  what  had  been 
injudiciously  asked  as  a  right,  we  were  willing  to  receive  as  a  boon  ;  and 
that  the  present  administration  should  not  be  held  responsible  for  the 
errors  of  their  predecessors. 

In  the  summer  of  1830,  an  arrangement  was  effected,  similar  to  that 
proposed  by  the  act  of  parliament  of  July,  1825.     Congress,  at  the  last 


WEST    INDIA    TRADE.  529 

session,  in  anticipation  of  some  arrangement,  or. perhaps  with  a  view  of 
facilitating  one,  passed  an  act  providing  that,  whenever  the  president 
should  have  evidence  that  Great  Britain  would  open  the  ports  of  her 
West  India  and  other  American  colonial  possessions,  to  the  vessels  of 
the  United  States  and  their  cargoes,  on  equal  terms  with  her  own  coming 
from  the  United  States,  and  would  permit  our  vessels  to  export  from 
her  colonies  to  any  country  except  the  British  dominions,  on  the  same 
terms  as  British  vessels;  then  the  president  was  to  announce  the  fact  by 
proclamation ;  whereupon  the  ports  of  the  United  States  were  to  be 
opened  to  British  vessels  from  the  colonies  on  the  same  terms  as  our  own. 
And  the  order  in  council  of  the  27th  of  July,  1825,  so  abruptly  issued 
on  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Gallatin,  was  to  be  abolished.  The  proclamation 
was  accordingly  issued  on  the  5th  of  October,  1830. 

It  was  but  natural  that  there  should  be  great  exultation  on  the  part 
of  the  administration  presses,  on  the  consummation  of  an  arrangement 
which  had,  as  they  said,  baffled  the  diplomacy  of  our  government  for 
forty  years.  The  recovery,  "  by  the  honest,  high-minded,  and  straight 
forward  administration  of  Andrew  Jackson,"  of  an  unrestricted  com- 
merce, temporarily  enjoyed  under  the  act  of  parliament  of  July,  1825, 
but  "unwittingly  and  criminally  thrown  away  by  the  blundering  negoti- 
ation" of  the  preceding  administration,  was  every  where  hailed  as  a  most 
important  and  honorable  achievement.  Whether  to  mitigate  the  mortifica- 
tion caused  by  the  triumph  of  the  administration,  or  as  the  expression 
of  an  honest  conviction,  the  opposition  declared  not  only  that  the  trade 
had  not  been  lost,  but  that  nothing  had  been  gained  by  the  arrangement. 
Our  products  were  admitted  into  the  neutral  islands,  and  thence  trans- 
shipped to  the  British  islands ;  and  the  additional  cost  of  this  circuitous 
transportation,  had  fallen  upon  the  British  consumers.  Under  the  new 
arrangement,  our  navigation,  which  had  enjoyed  the  carrying  trade, 
would  be  diminished  by  the  competition  of  the  British  shipping,  for 
which  loss  no  equivalent  would  be  received. 

Great  Britain  was  not  tardy  in  counteracting  any  advantages  which 
the  United  States  expected  from  a  reciprocal  trade.  Produce  coming 
into  her  West  India  ports  directly  from  the  United  States,  was  subjected 
to  exorbitant  duties,  but  was  admitted  into  the  Canadian  provinces 
and  thence  shipped  to  her  West  India  islands  in  British  vessels,  free  of 
duty,  to  the  exclusion  of  American  shipping.  Also,  the  flour  manufac- 
tured in  Canada  from  American  wheat,  was  considered  as  having 
changed  its  character,  and  was  admitted  free  into  England,  as  colonial 
produce.  The  duty,  for  example,  on  a  barrel  of  flour  from  the  United 
States  into  the  British  West  India  colonies,  was  6s.,  or  $1  33  ;  but  from 
the  North  American  colonies,  (the  Canadas,)  no  duty  was  charged.     On 

34 


530  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

1,000  feet  of  incli  thick  lumber,  ST;  from  the  British  colonies  free. 
And  to  evade  the  payment  of  duty  even  upon  the  produce  conveyed  in 
British  vessels  from  our  ports  to  the  West  India  colonies,  the  same  was 
first  taken  to  the  Canadian  ports,  and  thence  carried,  as  British  produce 
to  the  islands  without  being  subject  to  the  duty  paid  by  our  vessels. 

A  British  paper  remarked  on  this  subject  as  follows  :  "  The  most 
important  point  secured  by  this  new  arrangement,  is  the  carrying  trade. 
British  vessels  may  now  proceed  from  any  part  of  His  Majesty's 
dominions,  direct  to  the  United  States ;  there  load  a  full  cargo  either 
for  the  "West  Indies  direct,  or  by  way  of  the  provinces,  as  the  nature 
of  the  cargo  may  invite,  thus  completing  the  whole  voyage,  a  portion 
of  which  only  American  vessels  would  be  eligible  to  perform."  Another 
said,  tauntingly  :  "  Jonathan,  after  all,  will  not  find  the  great  boon 
so  good  a  thing  as  he  expected,  under  the  existing  restrictions."  And 
another :  "  We  only  allow  their  vessels  to  bring  to  our  ports  the  pro- 
duce and  manufactures  of  the  United  States :  they  make  their  ports 
free  to  our  commerce  in  every  sense  of  the  word." 

The  efi'ect  of  the  new  arrangement  upon  our  tonnage,  appeared  from 
the  of&cial  statements  of  the  treasury  for  1830  and  1831.  American 
tonnage  entering  the  ports  of  the  United  States  during  the  year  ending 
September  30th,  1830,  from  the  British  West  Indies,  was  22,428  tons; 
from  the  British  American  colonies,  130,527  tons:  total,  152,955. 
In  1831,  from  the  former,  38,046  tons;  from  the  latter,  92,672: 
total,  130,718.  Decrease  of  American  tonnage,  22,428.  British 
tonnage,  entering  our  ports  in  1830,  from  British  West  Indies,  182 
tons;  from  British  American  colonies,  4,002  tons:  total,  4,184.  In 
1831,  from  the  former,  23,760  tons;  from  the  latter,  82,557:  total, 
106,317.     Increase,  102,133. 

Essential  benefit,  however,  was  derived  by  the  states  bordering  on 
the  Canadas,  from  the  admission  of  American  produce  into  the  Canadian 
ports,  free,  without  any  adverse  efi'ect,  except  same  diminution  of  the 
revenues  of  the  Erie  canal,  caused  by  the  diversion  of  produce  to  the 
Canadian  market. 

In  1830,  John  Randolph  was  appointed  minister  to  Russia,  as  suc- 
cessor to  Mr.  Henry  Middleton,  who  had  been  appointed  by  Mr.  Mon- 
roe, in  1820.  At  the  session  of  1830-31,  the  appropriation  bill  being 
under  consideration,  Mr.  Stanbery,  of  Ohio,  moved  to  strike  out  the 
appropriation  for  the  salary  of  the  minister  to  Russia  for  that  year. 
Mr.  R.  had  been  but  nine  days  at  St.  Petersburgh,  when  he  was  com- 
pelled, by  ill  health,  to  leave  that  rigorous  climate ;  and  he  was  then 
supposed  to  be  residing  in  England  or  France.  The  mover  advocated 
his  motion  on  the  principles  which  brought  Gen.  Jackson  into  office, 


JOHN    RANDOLni's    MISSION    TO    RUSSIA.  531 

and  alluded  to  the  clamor  during  the  preceding  administration  about 
the  profligate  expenditure  of  the  public  money  and  constructive  jour- 
neys. A  change  of  administration  had  been  urged  to  correct  these 
abuses.  Perhaps  a  more  substantial  objection  was  that  urged  by  Mr. 
Burges — the  character  and  terms  of  the  mission.  Mr.  Randolph, 
though  possessing  talents  of  a  peculiar  kind,  was  not  generally  sup- 
posed to  be  well  fitted  for  a  diplomatic  office.  His  health  was  known 
to  be  insufficient ;  and  he  was  authorized  to  leave  Russia,  if  the  state 
of  his  health  should  require  it. 

Mr.  Randolph  was  noted  for  his  eccentricities.  His  conduct  at  St. 
Petersburgh  was  represented  to  have  been  such  as  to  excite  suspicions 
of  insanity.  His  singular  deportment  and  strange  appearance,  on  being 
presented  to  the  emperor  and  empress,  were  said  to  have  thrown  the 
latter  and  her  attendants  into  a  fit  of  laughter.  He  was  said  also  to 
have  shown  his  private  papers — his  correspondence  with  the  president 
and  secretary  of  state — urging  him  to  accept  the  appointment.  On  his 
departure,  he  left  the  aff"airs  of  the  United  States  in  the  charge  of  John 
Randolph  Clay,  his  secretary  of  legation,  who  was  said  to  be  a  minor, 
about  20  years  of  age. 

Mr.  Archer  opposed  the  motion  of  Mr.  Stanbery.  If  it  should  be 
adopted,  not  only  would  the  professed  object,  the  recall  of  the  present 
minister,  be  efi"ected ;  the  mission  to  the  Russian  court  would  be 
entirely  interdicted  :  for,  without  an  appropriation,  no  minister  could 
be  maintained.  The  debate  upon  this  comparatively  unimportant 
question  continued  several  weeks,  no  doubt  to  the  injury  of  other  pub- 
lic business,  when,  as  was  expected,  the  motion  was  lost. 

An  inquiry  into  the  condition  and  management  of  the  post-office 
department  was  authorized  in  the  senate,  and  resulted  in  the  discovery 
of  transactions  which  reflected  discredit  upon  the  administration  of  that 
department.  Mr.  Grundy  ofi"ered  a  resolution  prohibiting  the  commit- 
tee from  calling,  as  witnesses,  persons  removed  from  office  by  the 
department,  to  testify  as  to  the  causes  of  their  removal.  This  resolu- 
tion, after  considerable  debate,  and  some  modification,  was  adopted. 

On  the  3d  of  March,  Mr.  Clayton,  from  the  select  committee  on  this 
subject,  made  a  report;  from  which  it  appeared  certain  additional 
allowances,  without  warrant  of  law,  had  been  made  to  contractors  by 
the  department,  and  erroneously  entered  on  the  books  as  having  been 
made  by  Abraham  Bradley,  senior  assistant  postmaster-general,  who 
acted  as  postmaster-general  for  a  few  days  after  Mr.  M'Lane  left  the 
office,  and  before  its  duties  were  assumed  by  Mr.  Barry. 

A  call  had  been  made  at  the  preceding  session  for  copies  of  contracts 
made  by  the  postmaster-general  or  his  predecessor,  upon  which  extra 


532  THE    AMERICAN    STATESIttAN. 

allowances  had  been  made;  but  no  answer  had  been  received  until 
some  time  in  February  of  the  present  session,  after  the  long  delay  had 
been  complained  of  as  evidence  of  a  design  to  baffle  inquiry  into  the 
concerns  of  the  department.  It  appeared,  that,  in  thirty-six  cases, 
some  of  them  gross  violations  of  law,  the  allowances  were  falsely  set 
down  as  having  been  made  by  Mr.  Bradley.  The  documents  showed 
that  the  name  of  Mr.  Barry  had  been  originally  written ;  but  had  been 
"  rubbed  out,"  and  that  of  Mr.  Bradley  inserted.  Mr.  B.,  soon  after 
he  had  been  removed  from  office,  had,  by  letter,  informed  the  president 
of  some  of  these  cases ;  and  as  the  statements  of  the  letter  had  been 
sworn  to,  the  tendency  of  the  falsification  of  the  documents,  if  unde- 
tected, was  to  convict  Mr.  B.  of  swearing  falsely.  It  was  thought  pro- 
per, therefore,  that  the  report  should  be  printed.  After  some  debate^ 
the  question  on  suspending  the  printing  of  the  report  was  decided  in  the 
affirmative. 

An  attempt  was  made  at  this  session,  by  the  ultra  friends  of  ''  state 
rights"  to  repeal  or  modify  the  25th  .section  of  the  judiciary  act,  passed 
in  1789,  one  of  the  earliest  acts  of  congress  under  the  constitution. 
This  assault  upon  that  act  was  supposed  to  have  been  suggested  by  the 
discussion  of  the  powers  of  the  general  and  state  governments,  in  which 
had  been  claimed  for  the  supreme  court  the  power  to  decide  upon  the 
validity  of  acts  of  congress,  and  by  the  intended  reference  of  the  Chero- 
kee case  to  that  tribunal  for  decision. 

The  subject  was  referred  to  the  judiciary  committee,  a  majority  of 
whom,  Messrs.  Davis,  of  South  Carolina,  Foster,  of  Georgia,  Gordon,  of 
Virginia,  and  Daniel,  of  Kentucky,  reported  a  bill  for  the  repeal  of 
the  said  section,  on  the  ground  of  its  unconstitutionality.  The  report 
assumed  substantially  the  same  ground  as  Mr.  Hayne  and  others  in 
1830.  It  invoked  the  authority  of  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  reso- 
lutions ;  denied  the  supremacy  of  the  national  judiciary ;  and  asserted 
the  entire  independence  of  the  state  courts.  It  declared,  that  "  the 
power,  by  citation  or  writ  of  error,  to  take  a  case  after  judgment,  from 
a  state  court,  and  to  remove  it,  for  final  determination,  to  the  supreme 
federal  court,  is  a  much  greater  outrage  upon  the  fundamental  principles 
of  theoretical  and  practical  liberty,  as  established  here,  than  the  odious 
writ  of  quo  warranto^  as  it  was  used  in  England  by  a  tyrannical  king  to 
destroy  the  rights  of  corporations." 

A  counter  report  was  made  by  the  minority  of  the  committee,  viz.  : 
Messrs.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  Ellsworth,  of  Connecticut,  and 
White,  of  Louisiana,  and  was  written,  probably,  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  who 
was  chairman  of  the  judiciary  committee.  This  report  urged  against 
the  repeal,  the  necessity  of  an  appeal  from  state  courts  to  the  federal 


TRIAL  OF  A  DISTRICT  JUDGE  BY  IMPEACHMENT.  533 

court,  to  secure  to  individuals  important  rights.  Individual  states  were 
liable  to  high  excitements  and  strong  prejudices;  and  judges  of  state 
courts  would  participate  in  the  feelings  of  the  communities  aniund  them. 
The  judges  of  the  federal  court  residing  in  dilFerent  states,  and  remote 
from  each  other,  were  not  subject  to  local  prejudices  and  excitements. 

Another  reason  offered  for  preserving  this  section  was,  to  secure  a 
uniform  interpretation  of  the  constitution,  laws  and  treaties  of  the  United 
States.  If  the  courts  of  each  of  the  states  had  the  power  of  deciding, 
in  the  last  resort,  upon  the  constitution  and  laws,  there  might  be  a  dif- 
ferent construction  of  them  in  every  state ;  and  rights  secured  to  the 
citizens  of  one  state,  might  be  denied  to  the  citizens  of  another  state.  It 
was  urged,  too,  and  with  much  force,  that  the  repeal  of  this  section  would 
endanger  the  union.  The  chief  evil  of  the  confederation,  and  that 
which  gave  birth  to  the  constitution,  was,  that  the  general  government 
could  not  act  directly  upon  the  people  :  the  constitution  was  intended  to 
enable  the  general  government  to  act  immediately  upon  the  states,  and 
to  carry  its  own  laws  into  execution.  There  was  a  higher  authority  in 
this  country  than  that  of  sovereign  states ;  it  was  that  of  the  sovereign 
people  of  each  state ;  they  had,  in  their  state  conventions,  ratified  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and  the  states  were  •  bound  by  it. 
Other  arguments  were  adduced  by  the  minority,  in  favor,  both  of  the 
expediency  and  constitutionality  of  this  section  of  the  judiciary  act,  in 
authorizing  appeals  from  the  state  courts  to  the  national  court. 

This  attack  upon  the  supreme  court,  designed  to  remove  a  strong  bar- 
rier to  nullification,  met  with  a  signal  failure.  The  bill  for  the  repeal 
was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  138  to  51.  It  received  but  6  votes  from  the 
northern  states  :  Jarvis,  of  Maine,  Chandler  and  Harvey,  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, Angel,  Cambreleng  and  Maxwell,  of  New  York.  Delaware  and 
Maryland  were  unanimous  against  the  repeal.  Of  the  25  members 
absent,  a  majority  were  said  to  be  opposed  to  the  bill. 

Among  the  earliest  business  of  the  session  of  1830-31,  was  the  trial 
of  James  H.  Peck,  a  judge  of  the  district  court  of  the  United  States, 
for  the  district  of  Missouri,  on  an  impeachment  by  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives at  the  preceding  session ;  the  trial  having  been  adjourned. 
The  senate  was  organized  into  a  court  of  impeachment  on  the  13th  of 
December,  1830.  The  case  was  managed,  on  the  part  of  the  house,  by 
Messrs.  Buchanan,  M'Dufiie,  Judge  Spencer,  Storrs,  and  Wickliffe. 

Under  an  act  of  congress  "enabling  the  claimants  to  lands  within  the 
limits  of  the  state  of  Missouri  and  territory  of  Arkansas,  to  institute 
proceedings  to  try  the  validity  of  their  claims,"  a  suit  was  brought  before 
judge  Peck,  and  decided  against  the  claimants,  who  appealed  from  the 
decree  of  the  judge  to  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States.     Judge 


534  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Peck  having  caused  bis  opinion  and  the  reasons  for  the  same  to  be  pub- 
lished, the  counsel  for  the  claimants,  Luke  E.  Lawless,  procured  the 
publication  of  a  review  of  the  judge's  opinion,  purporting  to  expose  cer- 
tain errors  which  it  was  alleged  to  contain.  At  a  subsequent  term  of 
the  court,  the  judge  caused  the  imprisonment  of  Lawless  for  a  contempt 
thereof,  for  one  day,  and  suspended  him  from  professional  practice  in 
that  court  for  eighteen  months.  The  judge  was  impeached  for  an  alleged 
abuse  of  judicial  authority,  the  publication  of  Lawless  not  being  deemed 
harsh  or  disrespectful. 

Judge  Peck  was  defended  by  Mr.  Meredith,  of  Philadelphia,  and  Mr. 
Wirt.  It  was  shown  that  the  opinion  of  the  judge  had  been  published 
at  the  request  of  the  members  of  the  bar,  and  of  those  persons  who 
were  interested  in  the  case ;  and  such  publications  were  usual  both  in 
England  and  the  United  States.  The  case  in  question  was  a  select  and 
test  cause,  and  an  adverse  decision  would  produce  dissatisfaction  in  all 
other  claimants.  The  respondent  considered  the  publication  a  gross  and 
palpable  misrepresentation  of  his  opinion.  Lawless  had  an  opportunity 
offered  him,  on  his  defense,  of  clearing  himself  of  intentional  disrespect, 
but  had  refused  to  answer  the  interrogatories  of  the  judge,  and  reas- 
serted the  allegations  of  his  publication.  The  cause  was  ably  argued  by 
Messrs.  M'Buffie,  Buchanan,  Spencer,  Storrs,  and  Wickliffe,  in  favor  of 
the  impeachment,  and  by  Messrs.  Meredith  and  Wirt  against  it.  The 
speeches  of  Mr.  Storrs  and  Mr.  Wirt  were  spoken  of  as  surpassingly 
eloquent.  The  judge  was  acquitted  :  21  votes  to  sustain  the  impeach- 
ment ;  24  against.  A  majority  of  two-thirds  is  necessWy  to  a  con- 
viction. 

The  result  of  this  trial,  however,  led  to  the  passage  of  a  law  at  the 
same  session,  limiting  the  power  of  judges,  under  the  authority  of  the 
English  common  law  doctrine,  in  punishing  for  contempt  of  court.  The 
act  restricted  this  power  to  cases  of  misbehavior  in  the  presence  of 
courts,  or  so  near  them  as  to  obstruct  the  administration  of  justice;  and 
to  the  official  misbehavior  of  officers  of  the  courts. 

A  revision  of  the  tariff  having  been  recommended  by  the  president  in 
his  annual  message,  the  committee  on  manufactures,  of  which  Mr.  Mal- 
lary  was  chairman,  made  a  report  dissenting  from  some  of  the  views 
of  the  president.  The  committee  contrasted  the  sentiments  of  the  mes- 
sage with  those  previously  declared  by  him  on  this  subject.  He  had 
said,  that  "  the  power  to  impose  duties  on  imports  originally  belonged  to 
the  states.  This  authority  having  entirely  passed  from  the  states,  the 
right  to  exercise  it  for  the  purpose  of  protection  does  not  exist  in  them ; 
and,  consequently,  if  it  be  not  possessed  by  the  general  government,  it 
must  be  extinct.     Our  political  system  would  thus  present  the  anomaly 


REVISION   OF    THE    TARIFF.  535 

of  a  people  stripped  of  the  right  to  foster  their  own  industry,  and  to 
counteract  the  most  selfish  and  destructive  policy  which  might  be  adopted 
by  foreign  nations." 

In  the  message,  the  president  says  :  "  The  chief  object  of  duties  should 
be  revenue  :"  but  "  they  may  be  so  adjusted  as  to  encourage  manufac- 
tures." Also,  that  "  objects  of  national  importance  alone  ought  to  be 
protected;"  that  "the  present  tarifi"  taxes  some  of  the  comforts  of  life 
unnecessarily  high ;  it  undertakes  to  protect  interests  too  local  and 
minute  to  justify  a  general  exaction ;  and  it  also  attempts  to  force  some 
kinds  of  manufactures  for  which  the  country  is  not  ripe :"  and  he 
recommends  that  each  particular  interest  be  tak^n  up  "  singly  for  delibe- 
ration." 

These,  and  several  other  points  in  the  message,  are  discussed  by  the 
committee.  The  first  they  considered  as  being  "  in  plain  collision  with 
the  sentiments  he  had  previously  maintained."  He  had  admitted  the 
power  to  "  foster  "  our  industry  ;  in  regard  to  which  the  committee  say: 
"  If  revenue  alone  is  wanted,  duties  for  that  object  should  be  imposed. 
\i protection  to  domestic  industry  is  required,  let  duties  be  imposed  to 
''foster  it.'  Why  should  the  c/we/' object  be  revenue?  Why  protection 
secondary^  wh6n  the  treasury  may  be  full  ?  Then  they  should  be  ad- 
justed to  secure  protection.  This  should  be  the  'primary  object.  The 
protecting  power  having  once  belonged  to  the  states,  and  having  been 
transferred  to  the  general  government,  it  may  be  used  as  the  good  of  the 
nation  demands,  for  a  primary^  not  a  secondary  object." 

The  general  expressions:  "objects  of  national  importance;"  "some 
of  the  comforts  of  life  ;"  "  interests  too  local ;"  "  some  kinds  of  manu- 
factures for  which  the  country  is  not  ripe,"  the  committee  thought, 
afforded  no  aid  in  adjusting  the  details  of  a  protecting  tariff.  Little  dif- 
ference of  opinion  existed  as  to  abstract  principles ;  the  difficulty  con- 
sisted in  applying  theory  to  practical  and  useful  purpose.  In  this, 
individuals  differed  in  opinion.  Congress  had  not  been  unmindful  of 
these  objects,  and  no  material  change,  it  was  thought,  was  demanded. 

The  committee  adverted  to  some  of  the  most  essential  "  comforts  of 
life,"  as  cotton  goods,  nails,  hats,  caps,  shoes,  boots,  cheese,  &c.,  as  fur- 
nishing evidence,  that,  in  all  cases  where  the  material  is  found  at  home, 
and  the  protecting  duty  had  been  adequate,  the  domestic  article  had  be- 
come cheaper.  The  duty  secured  the  market  to  the  home  manufacturer, 
and  domestic  competition  reduced  the  cost  to  the  lowest  possible  price, 
and  at  the  same  time  improved  the  quality.  The  committee  also  objected 
decidedly  to  the  suggestion  of  submitting  each  interest  "  singly  for  de- 
liberation," without  reference  to  a  general  system.  By  such  a  rule,  they 
believed,  no  protecting  system  had  ever  been  adopted,  and  by  it  none 


536  THE    AMERICAI^  STATESMAN. 

could  stand ;  and  they  apprehended,  that  an  attempt  to  disturb  the  tariff 
which  had  been  so  recently  revised,  would  "  spread  alarm  among  the 
great  interests  of  the  country,  shake  confidence  in  the  plighted  faith  of 
the  government,  and  expose  the  whole  country  to  the  dangers  of  a  most 
selfish  policy  which  might  be  adopted  by  foreign  nations." 


•CHAPTER  XLIII. 

CONTROVERSY   BETWEEN    MR.    CALHOUN    AND    GEN.    JACKSON   IN    RELATION 
TO    OCCURRENCES    IN    THE    SEMINOLE    WAR. 

In  the  winter  of  1830-31,  Mr.  Calhoun,  vice-president  of  the  United 
States,  appeared  before  the  public  in  an  address,  accompanied  by  a  cor- 
respondence between  himself  and  Gen.  Jackson,  in  relation  to  the  course 
of  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the  deliberations  of  the  cabinet  of  Mr.  Monroe,  on 
the  occurrences  of  the  Seminole  war.  His  object  was  to  expose  an 
attempt  to  effect  his  "  political  destruction"  by  creating  a  disaffection 
between  Gen.  Jackson  and  himself.  The  "  secret  movement "  against 
him  commenced,  as  he  conceived,  with  certain  letters  of  Mr.  Crawford  to 
different  persons,  representing  that  Mr.  Calhoun  had  been  opposed  to 
the  conduct  of  Gen.  Jackson  in  the  Florida  war,  and  in  cabinet  council 
had  proposed  "  that  Gen.  Jackson  should  be  punished  in  some  form,  or 
reprehended  in  some  form,"  he  was  not  positively  certain  which. 

Mr.  Crawford,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Forsyth,  April  30,  1830,  gives  as  an 
apology  for  disclosing  what  passed  in  this  cabinet  meeting,  that  an  ex- 
tract of  a  certain  letter  had  been  published  in  a  Nashville  paper,  alleging 
that  he  (Mr.  C.)  "  had  proposed  to  arrest  Gen.  Jackson,  but  that  he  was 
triumphantly  defended  by  Mr.  Calhoun  and  Mr.  Adams; "  and  Mr.  Craw- 
ford expresses  the  belief,  that  the  letter  had  been  written  by  Mr.  Cal- 
houn, or  by  his  directions.  Mr.  Crawford  farther  says  :  "  Mr.  Calhouu 
made  some  allusion  to  a  letter  the  general  had  written  to  the  president, 
who  had  forgotten  that  he  had  received  such  a  letter ;  but  said,  if  he 
had,  he  could  find  it ;  and  went  directly  to  his  cabinet  and  brought  the 
letter  out.  In  it  Gen.  Jackson  approved  cf  the  determination  of  the 
government  to  break  up  Amelia  island  and  Galveztown,  and  gave 
it  also  as  his  opinion  that  the  Floridas  ought  to  be  taken  by  the 
United  States.  He  added,  that  it  might  be  a  delicate  matter  for 
the  executive  to  decide ;  but  if  the  president  approved  of  it,  he  had  only 


MR.  CALHOUN  AND  GEN.  JACKSON  ON  THE  SEMINOLE  WAR.    537 

to  give  a  hint  to  some  confidential  member  of  congress,  say  Johnny  Eay, 
and  he  would  do  it,  and  take  the  responsibility  upon  himself.  I  asked 
the  president  if  the  letter  had  been  answered.  He  replied,  no  ;  for  he 
had  no  recollection  of  having  received  it.  I  then  said  that  I  had  no 
doubt  that  Gen.  Jackson,  in  taking  Pensacola,  believed  he  was  doing 
what  the  executive  wished.  After  that  letter  was  produced,  unanswered, 
I  should  have  opposed  the  infliction  of  punishment  upon  the  general,  who 
had  considered  the  silence  of  the  president  as  a  tacit  consent.  Yet  it 
was  after  this  letter  was  produced  and  read,  that  Mr.  Calhoun  made  his 
proposition  to  the  cabinet  for  punishing  the  general." 

The  above  having  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  Gen.  Jackson,  he  imme- 
diately wrote  to  Mr.  Calhoun,  (May  13,  1830,)  expressing  his  surprise 
at  the  course  taken  by  him  in  the  cabinet,  so  contrary  to  what  had  been 
indicated  in  his  correspondence  at  that  time,  and  referred  to  the  letter 
of  Mr.  Calhoun,  as  secretary  of  war,  to  Gov.  Bibb,  of  Alabama,  of  the 
13th  of  May,  1818,  saying:  "Gen.  Jackson  is  vested  with  full  power 
to  conduct  the  war  in  the  manner  he  may  judge  best;"  and  also  to  his 
letters  to  him  (Gen.  J.,)  in  one  of  which  he  had  said  :  "  I  have  the  honor 
to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  20th  ultimo,  and  to 
acquaint  you  with  the  entire  approbation  of  the  president  of  all  the 
measures  you  have  adopted  to  terminate  the  rupture  with  the  Indians." 
The  general  desired  to  know  whether  he  (Mr.  C.)  had  made  the  proposi- 
tion imputed  to  him  by  Mr.  Crawford. 

As  will  readily  be  seen,  there  was  involved  in  this  controversy  a  ques- 
tion of  veracity  between  Crawford  and  Calhoun.  The  former  had  repre- 
sented the  latter  as  having  attempted  to  get  the  general  punished.  Gen. 
Jackson,  on  the  strength  of  this  statement  of  Mr.  Crawford,  accuses  Mr. 
Calhoun  of  duplicity.  Mr.  Calhoun  denies  the  truth  of  the  charge,  and 
in  his  reply  to  the  letter  of  Gen.  Jackson,  endeavors  to  prove  that  neither 
himself  nor  Mr.  Monroe  considered  him  authorized  to  occupy  the  Span- 
ish posts.  He  says  :  "  To  save  you  the  trouble  of  turning  to  the  file  of 
your  correspondence,  I  have  inclosed  extracts  from  the  letters,  which 
clearly  prove,  that  the  decision  of  the  cabinet  on  the  point  that  your 
orders  did  not  authorize  the  occupation  of  St,  Marks  and  Pensacola,  was 
early  and  fully  made  known  to  you ;  and  that  I,  in  particular,  concurred 
in  the  decision. 

"Mr.  Monroe's  letter  of  the  19th  of  July,  1818,  the  first  of  the  series, 
and  written  immediately  after  the  decision  of  the  cabinet,  enters  fully 
into  the  views  taken  by  the  executive  of  the  whole  subject.  In  your 
reply  of  the  19th  of  August,  1818,  you  object  to  the  construction  which 
the  administration  had  placed  on  your  orders,  and  you  assign  your  reasons 
at  large,  why  you  conceived  that  the  orders  under  which  you  acted  author- 


538  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ized  your  operations  in  Florida.  Mr.  Monroe  replied  en  the  20tli  of 
October,  1818;  and  after  expressing  his  regret  that  you  had  placed  a 
construction  upon  your  orders  different  from  what  was  intended,  he 
invited  you  to  open  a  correspondence  with  me,  that  your  conception  of 
the  meaning  of  the  orders,  and  that  of  the  administration,  might  be 
placed,  with  the  reasons  on  both  sides,  on  the  files  of  the  war  department. 
Your  letter  of  the  15  th  of  November,  in  answer,  agrees  to  the  corres- 
pondence as  proposed,  but  declines  commencing  it,  to  which  Mr.  Monroe 
replied  by  a  letter  of  the  21st  of  December,  stating  his  reasons  for  sug- 
gesting the  correspondence,  and  why  he  thought  that  it  ought  to  commence 
with  you."  Mr.  Calhoun  also  refers  to  the  message  of  the  president  to  the 
house  of  representatives  of  the  25th  of  March,  1818,  and  his  annual  message 
in  November  following,  as  containing  evidence  of  his  having  considered  the 
occupation  of  the  posts  unauthorized.  And  he  proceeds  in  attempting 
to  show,  that  in  his  letter  to  Got.  Bibb,  saying  that  the  general  had 
power  "  to  conduct  the  war  in  the  manner  he  might  judge  best,"  he 
could  not  have  meant  that  he  had  authority  to  occupy  the  Spanish  posts. 
Nor  could  certain  other  letters  be  justly  interpreted  into  such  authority. 

Speaking  of  the  letter  of  Gen.  Jackson  to  Mr.  Monroe,  mentioned  by 
Mr.  Crawford  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Forsyth,  Mr.  Calhoun  said  it  was  not 
received  till  several  weeks  after  the  orders  to  the  general  had  been  issued, 
and  could  not,  therefore,  have  had  any  influence  in  drawing  them  up ;  nor 
could  the  general  have  supposed  so,  as  he  had  not  referred  to  it  as  form- 
ing a  part  of  his  justification.  Mr.  C.  adds  :  "  You  rested  your  defense 
on  what  I  conceive  to  be  much  more  elevated  ground — on  the  true  con- 
struction, as  you  supposed,  of  your  orders,  and  the  necessity  of  the  meas- 
ures which  you  adopted  to  terminate  the  war,  and  not  on  any  supposed 
secret  wish  of  the  executive  in  opposition  to  the  public  orders  under 
which  you  acted." 

The  reply  of  the  president  to  the  letter  of  Mr.  Calhoun  was  brief  He 
said  it  had  been  intimated  to  him  many  years  ago,  that  it  had  been  he, 
(Mr.  Calhoun,)  and  not  Mr.  Crawford,  who  had  been  secretly  endeavoring 
to  destroy  his  reputation ;  but  he.  had  repelled  the  insinuations  upon  the 
ground  of  his  professed  friendship,  and  upon  his  letters  approving  entirely 
his  conduct  in  the  Seminole  campaign.  He  adds  :  "  When  I  was  pre- 
sented with  a  copy  of  Mr.  Crawford's  letter,  with  that  frankness  which 
ever  has,  and  I  hope  ever  will  characterize  my  conduct,  I  considered  it 
due  to  you,  and  the  friendly  relations  which  had  always  existed  between 
us,  to  lay  it  forthwith  before  j^ou,  and  ask  if  the  statements  in  that  letter 
could  be  true.  I  repeat,  I  had  a  right  to  believe  that  you  were  my  sin- 
cere friend,  and  until  now,  never  expected  to  have  occasion  to  say  to  you, 
in  the  language  of  Caesar,  Et  tu  Brute.     The  evidence  which  has  brought 


MR.  CALHOUN  AND  GEN.  JACKSON  ON  THE  SEMINOLE  WAR.    539 

me  to  this  conelusion,  is  abundantly  contained  in  your  letter  now  before 
me.  In  your  and  Mr.  Crawford's  dispute,  I  have  no  interest  whatever  ; 
but  it  may  become  necessary  for  me  hereafter,  when  I  shall  have  more 
leisure,  and  the  documents  at  hand,  to  place  the  subject  in  its  proper 
light ;  to  notice  the  historical  facts  and  references  in  your  communication, 
which  will  give  a  very  different  view  of  this  subject." 

It  is  perhaps  necessary  here  to  observe,  that,  although  Mr.  Calhoun 
does  not  in  express  terms  so  declare,  he  considered  his  meditated  "  poli- 
tical destruction"  as  having  originated  with  Mr.  Van  Buren  and  his 
political  friends  with  a  view  to  his  own  advancement;  and  he  regarded 
Mr.  Crawford  as  one  of  the  principal  agents  in  the  conspiracy,  who  com- 
menced writing  his  secret  letters  as  early  as  1827.  That  Mr.  Van  Buren 
was  suspected  of  having  been  the  instigator  of  the  "  movement,"  was  well 
known  at  the  time ;  and  appears  farther  from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Lumpkin,  of 
Georgia,  to  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  which  he  uses  epithets,  by  which  Mr.  Van  Buren, 
as  a  politician,  was  very  generally  designated  by  his  opponents.  He  con- 
sidered it  the  duty  of  "  every  patriotic  citizen  to  frown  indignantly  upon 
all  intriguers^  managers,  political  jugglers,  and  selfish  politicians,  of 
every  description,  who  are  disposed  to  divide  and  conquer." 

Mr.  Calhoun  published  also  the  private  correspondence,  in  1821, 
between  president  Monroe  and  Gen.  Jackson  on  the  Seminole  affair,  to 
show  that  Mr.  Monroe  considered  the  occupation  of  the  Spanish  posts  a 
violation  of  orders.  Says  Mr.  Monroe  :  "  In  calling  you  into  active  ser- 
vice against  the  Seminoles,  and  communicating  to  you  the  orders  which 
had  been  given  just  before  to  Gen.  Gaines,  the  views  and  intentions  of 
the  government  were  fully  disclosed  in  respect  to  the  operations  in 
Florida.  In  transcending  the  limit  prescribed  by  those  orders,  you  acted 
on  your  own  responsibility,  on  facts  and  circumstances  which  were  un- 
known to  the  government  when  the  orders  were  given,  many  of  which, 
indeed,  occurred  afterwards,  and  which  you  thought  imposed  on  you  the 
measure,  as  an  act  of  patriotism,  essential  to  the  honor  and  interests  of 
your  country." 

Mr.  Monroe  considered  himself  justified  by  the  law  of  nations  in  order- 
ing troops  into  Florida  in  pursuit  of  the  enemy,  who  eluded  pursuit  by 
entering  into  that  country.  This  was  not  an  act  of  hostility  to  Spain  ; 
and  it  was  the  less  so,  because  her  government  was  bound  to  restrain  the 
Indians  from  committing  hostilities  against  the  United  States.  "But 
an  order  by  the  government,"  says  Mr.  Monroe,  "to  attack  a  Spanish 
post,  would  assume  another  character.  It  would  authorize  war,  to  which. 
by  the  principles  of  our  constitution,  the  executive  is  incompetent," 
And  to  avoid  giving  cause  of  war,  by  making  the  government  responsible 
for  the  act,  he  had  ordered  the  surrender  of  the  posts. 


640  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

G-en.  Jackson,  in  reply,  justifies  himself  on  the  ground,  "  that  an  cider, 
generally,  to  perform  a  certain  service,  or  effect  a  certain  object,  without 
any  specification  of  the  means  to  be  adopted,  or  limits  to  govern  the  exe- 
cutive officer,  leaves  an  entire  discretion  with  the  officer,  as  to  the  choice 
and  application  of  the  means,  but  preserves  the  responsibility  for  his  acts 
on  the  authority  from  which  the  order  emanated." 

In  answer  to  this,  Mr.  Monroe  says  :  "  I  am  sorry  to  find  that  you 
understood  your  instructions  relative  to  operations  in  Florida  differently 
from  what  we  intended.  I  was  satisfied,  however,  that  you  had  good 
reasons  for  your  conduct,  and  have  acted  in  all  things  on  that  principle. 
By  supposing  that  you  understood  them  as  we  did,  I  concluded  that  you 
proceeded  on  your  own  responsibility  alone,  in  which,  knowing  the 
purity  of  your  motives,  I  have  done  all  that  I  could  to  justify  the  meas- 
ure." He  then  advises  the  general  to  write  a  letter  to  the  department, 
stating  his  views  of  the  instructions  under  which  he  had  acted ;  and  says  : 
"  This  will  be  answered,  so  as  to  explain  ours,  in  a  friendly  manner,  by 
Mr.  Calhoun,  who  has  very  just  and  liberal  sentiments  on  the  subject. 
This  will  be  necessary  in  the  case  of  a  call  for  papers  by  congress. 
Thus  we  shall  all  stand  on  the  ground  of  honor,  each  doing  justice 
to  the  other,  which  is  the  ground  on  which  we  wish  to  place  each 
other." 

The  correspondence  in  Mr.  Calhoun's  pamphlet  is  so  exceedingly 
voluminous  that  we  cannot  refer  to  a  tithe  of  the  letters  it  contains. 
The  object  of  its  publication  seems  to  be,  not  only  to  exculpate  himself 
from  the  charge  of  duplicity  preferred  against  him  by  Gen.  Jackson,  but 
to  convict  Mr.  Crawford  either  of  the  same,  or  of  direct  falsehood,  or  of 
both.  To  this  effect,  he  introduces  several  letters.  The  first  in  order 
is  from  Mr.  M'Duffie,  dated  May  14,  1830 ;  who  says,  that  he  heard  Mr. 
Crawford  (in  1818)  state,  in  conversation  with  Eldred  Simpkins,  that 
himself  and  Mr.  Calhoun  were  the  only  members  of  the  cabinet  in  favor 
of  an  inquiry  into  the  conduct  of  Gen.  Jackson.  He  also  disapproved 
the  course  of  the  general  in  forestalling  public  opinion,  in  prematurely 
bringing  the  grounds  of  his  defense  before  the  country,  and  thus  anti- 
cipating the  administration.  And  in  reference  to  an  article  in  the 
National  Intelligencer  which  laid  down  a  principle  of  the  law  of  nations 
going  to  show,  that  a  neutral  territory  could  only  be  invaded  in  fresh 
pursuit  of  an  enemy,  Mr.  Crawford  said  :  "  Mr.  Adams  denies  all  that;" 
and  he  represented  Mr.  Adams  as  going  farther  in  justifying  Gen.  Jack- 
son than  even  Mr.  Monroe,  stating  "  that  the  latter  was  induced  to  pass 
over  the  conduct  of  Gen.  Jackson  without  public  censure,  not  from  a 
belief  that  he  had  not  violated  his  orders,  and  exceeded  his  power,  but 
from  political  considerations  connected  with  our  relations  with  Spain." 


MR.  CALHOUN  AND  GEN.  JACKSON  ON  THE  SEMINOLE  WAR    541 

Mr.  Eobert  S  Garnett,  formerly  a  member  of  congress  from  Virginia, 
Bays,  in  his  letter  of  Jan.  12,  1831,  that,  in  a  conversation  wi:h  Mr. 
Monroe,  in  the  winter  of-  1819,  the  latter  declared,  that  there  had  been 
no  division  in  the  cabinet,  as  to  the  course  which  should  be  pursued 
towards  the  general.  "  This,"  said  Mr.  Garnett,  "excited  my  astonish- 
ment, because,  in  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Crawford,  either  before  the 
debate  commenced,  or  while  it  was  pending,  Mr.  Crawford  had  used  this 
expression  to  me  :  '  General  Jackson  ought  to  be  condemned.'  I  noted 
this  expression  down  in  a  journal  I  kept,  and  subsequently  repeated  it 
frequently.  Mr.  C.  Beverly  told  me  that  he  had  mentioned  it  to  Gen. 
Jackson,  when  he  was  at  his  house  in  Tennessee,  and,  I  think,  said  that 
the  general  expressed  much  surprise." 

Mr.  Calhoun  also  controverts  the  statement  of  Mr.  Crawford  in  rela- 
tion to  the  private  letter  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the  cabinet 
meeting  before  mentioned,  and  gives  letters  from  Mr.  Monroe  and  Mr. 
"Wirt,  both  of  whom  express  the  opinion  that  the  letter  was  not  before 
the  cabinet.  The  former  says  he  received  the  letter  when  sick  in  bed, 
and  could  not  read  it,  and  handed  it  to  Mr.  Calhoun  for  perusal,  who 
after  reading  it,  said  it  would  require  an  answer.  Mr.  Crawford  coming 
in  soon  afterwards,  Mr.  Monroe  handed  it  to  him  also  for  perusal ;  who 
remarked  that  it  related  to  the  Seminole  war.  Mr.  M.  being  some  time 
confined  by  indisposition,  the  letter  was  laid  aside  and  forgotten  by  him, 
and  not  read,  until  after  the  conclusion  of  the  war ;  and  he  then  did  it 
on  an  intimation  from  Mr.  Calhoun  that  it  required  his  attention. 

Mr.  Wirt  said,  (May  28,  1830,)  the  letter  from  Gen.  Jackson  to  Mr. 
Monroe,  was  new  to  him.  He  thought  if  such  a  letter  had  been  exhib- 
ited at  the  meeting,  he  could  not  have  forgotten  it.  Nor  had  he  any 
recollection  that  'punishment  had  been  proposed  by  any  one,  unless  an 
inquiry  into  the  official  conduct  of  the  general  could  be  regarded  as 
punishment.  And  he  thought  the  singular  fact  of  the  general's  only 
asking  for  a  positive  hint  of  the  president's  approbation,  through  "  some 
confidential  member  of  congress,  say  Johnny  Ray,"  would  have  tended 
to  fix  the  occurrence  in  his  memory. 

Mr.  James  A.  Hamilton,  of  New  York,  in  a  statement  published  in 
the  New  York  Evening  Post,  Feb.  22,  1831,  says,  that,  during  the 
winter  of  1827  and  '28,  he  accompanied  Gen.  Jackson  and  suit  from 
Nashville  to  New  Orleans ;  and  much  having  been  said  in  relation  to 
the  charges  against  Gen.  Jackson  which  had  been  renewed,  and  partic- 
ularly as  to  the  unfriendly  course  Mr.  Crawford  was  supposed  to  have 
taken  towards  the  general  in  relation  to  the  Seminole  war,  he,  (Mr, 
Hamilton,)  returning  through  Georgia  to  New  York,  purposed  calling 
on  Mr.   Crawford,  and  ascertaining  what  had  occurred  in  Mr.  Monroe's 


542  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

cabinet  deliberations.  But  Mr.  Crawford's  residence  being  so  far  out 
of  the  way,  he  did  not  visit  him.  He,  however,  wrote  to  Mr.  Forsyth, 
and  requested  him  when  he  should  meet  Mr.  Crawford,  to  show  him  his 
letter,  and  communicate  the  result  to  him  at  New  York.  Mr.  Hamil- 
ton says  farther,  that,  on  his  arrival  at  Washington,  in  an  interview  with 
Mr.  Calhoun  on  the  subject,  he  asked  him,  (Mr.  C.,)  "whether  at  any 
meeting  of  Mr.  Monroe's  cabinet,  the  propriety  of  arresting  Gen.  Jack- 
son, for  any  thing  done  by  him  during  the  Seminole  war,  had  been  at 
any  time  discussed."  To  which  Mr.  Calhoun  replied  :  •'  Never:  such  a 
measure  was  not  thought  of,  much  less  discussed.  The  only  point 
before  the  cabinet  was  the  answer  that  was  to  be  given  to  the  Spanish 
government." 

Connected  with  the  statement  of  Mr.  Hamilton,  is  a  letter  from  Mr. 
Forsyth,  dated  in  February,  1828,  in  answer  to  that  of  the  former 
written  from  Savannah  on  his  way  to  New  York,  which  Mr.  F.  had, 
agreeably  to  his  request,  shown  to  Mr.  Crawford,  who  had  authorized 
him  to  say,  that,  at  the  meeting  of  Mr.  Monroe's  cabinet,  Mr.  Calhoun 
had  "  urged  upon  the  president  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  arresting 
and  trying  Gen.  Jackson.  Mr.  Monroe  was  very  much  annoyed  by  it ; 
expressed  a  belief  that  such  a  step  would  not  meet  the  public  approba- 
tion ;  that  Gen.  Jackson  had  performed  too  much  public  service  to  be 
treated  as  a  younger  or  subaltern  officer  might  be,  without  shocking 
public  opinion.  Mr.  Adams  spoke  with  great  violence  against  the  pro- 
posed arrest,  and  justified  the  general  throughout,  vehemently  urging 
the  president  to  make  the  cause  of  the  general  that  of  the  administra- 
tion. Mr.  Crawford  suggested  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  deciding 
upon  the  course  to  be  pursued  towards  the  general,  as  the  question  for 
which  the  cabinet  was  convened,  did  not  require  it ;  they  were  called  to 
determine  how  Spain  was  to  be  treated  in  relation  to  the  Florida  affair. 
*  *  *  Mr.  Calhoun  had  previously  communicated  to  Mr.  Crawford 
his  intention  to  present  the  question  to  Mr.  Monroe;  an  intention  Mr. 
Crawford  approved,  although  not  believing,  as  he  stated  to  Mr  Calhoun, 
that  Gen.  Jackson  would  be  either  arrested  or  censured  by  thepresident." 

Drawn  out  by  the  letter  of  Mr.  Forsyth  to  Mr.  Hamilton,  Mr.  Calhoun 
addresses  the  editor  of  the  United  States  Telegraph,  requesting  the 
publication  of  a  statement,  as  supplemental  to  his  correspondence  with 
Gen.  Jackson.  In  reference  to  the  remark  attributed  to  him  by  Mr. 
Hamilton,  that  "  the  only  point  before  the  cabinet  was  the  answer  to  be 
given  to  the  Spanish  government,"  he  says :  "  I  neither  did  nor  could 
use  the  expression  '  only,'  as  it  would  have  been  both  inconsistent  with 
facts  and  absurd,  as  the  publications  on  the  Seminole  affair  clearly  indi- 
cate that  other  points  were  considered  by  the  cabinet.     If  the  statement 


MR.    CALHOUN    AND    GEN.    JACKSON   ON    THE    SEMINOLIE    WAR.         543 

be  an  error  on  tlie  part  of  Mr.  Hamilton,  it  probably  originated  in  my 
using  tlie  words  '  main  point  or  real  point,'  or  some  other  expression  of 
similar  import." 

The  statement  concludes  tlius  :  "  The  argument  of  Mr.  Crawford  in 
support  of  his  statement  of  the  proceedings  of  the  cabinet,  rested  almost 
exclusively  on  the  statement  of  Mr.  Crowninshield  and  Mr.  Adams.  A 
subsequent  acknowledgment  of  the  former  that  he  was  not  present,  .  .  . 
and,  consequently,  that  his  statement  to  Mr.  Crawford  is  unfounded,  and 
the  fact  disclosed  by  the  letter  of  Mr.  Adams  to  me,  published  with  the 
correspondence,  that  Mr.  Crawford  has  given  in  his  letter  a  garbled 
extract  of  Mr.  Adams'  statement  to  him,  omitting  the  material  point, 
removed  the  foundation  of  his  argument ;  and  with  it,  the  superstructure 
which  he  raised,  fell  to  the  ground.  *  *  *  Unpleasant  as  I  find  my 
situation,  I  experience  one  consolation,  without  which  it  would  be 
intolerable.  I  have  been  placed  in  it  by  no  fault  of  my  own.  Little 
did  I  suspect,  more  than  twelve  years  ago,  when  daring  to  construe 
orders  which  I  myself  had  drawn,  and  to  which  I  could  give  no  other 
construction  than  what  I  did,  consistently  with  the  constitution,  acting 
as  I  was,  under  the  obligation  of  an  oath  to  abstain  from  the  infraction 
of  that  sacred  instrument ;  and  in  venturing  to  suggest  the  course  which 
I  honestly  supposed  ought  to  be  adopted  on  their  infraction,  I  should 
be  exposed,  at  this  late  day,  to  so  much  difficulty  and  danger.  Yet  this 
is  my  only  offense." 

Suspicion  having  been  cast  upon  Mr.  Yan  Buren  as  having  instigated 
the  attack  upon  the  vice-president,  that  gentleman  transmitted,  (Feb. 
25,  1831,)  to  the  editor  of  the  United  States  Telegraph,  for  publication, 
a  note,  disclaiming  all  agency  in  the  affair,  and  pronouncing  every  as- 
sertion or  insinuation  designed  to  impute  to  him  any  participation  in 
attempts  supposed  to  have  been  made  in  1827  and  1828,  to  prejudice 
the  vice-president  in  the  good  opinion  of  Gen.  Jackson,  or  at  any  time, 
to  be  alike  unfounded  and  unjust. 

The  intimation  of  Gen.  Jackson  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Calhoun,  that, 
at  some  future  day,  "  when  he  had  more  leisure,  and  the  documents  at 
hand,"  he  might  "  place  the  subject  in  its  proper  light,"  was  never  car- 
ried into  effect — so  far,  at  least,  as  regards  the  publication  of  any  de- 
fense. We  are  informed,  however,  by  Mr.  Benton,  in  his  "  Thirty 
Years'  Yiew,"  recently  published,  that  a  reply  was  soon  after  drawn  up, 
giving  a  full  exposition  of  the  affair.  This  "  Exposition  "  it  appears, 
was  intended  for  immediate  publication ;  but  was  delayed,  as  Mr.  Ben- 
ton says,  from  a  feeling  of  repugnance  to  the  exhibition  of  a  chief  magis- 
trate as  a  newspaper  writer,  until  after  the  expiration  of  his  office,  and 
afterwards  until  his  death.     Being  placed  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Benton, 


544  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

it  has  at  length  found  its  way  before  the  public — at  least  that  part  of  it 
which  relates  more  particularly  to  the  matter  in  controversy. 

Gen.  Jackson  refers  to  the  orders  given,  from  time  to  time,  to  Gen. 
Gaines  and  himself,  the  most  material  of  which  have  been  given  in  our 
account  of  the  Seminole  campaign,  in  a  preceding  chapter.  Mr.  Cal- 
houn's understanding  of  these  orders  was  to  be  inferred  from  his  letter 
to  Gov.  Bibb,  in  May,  1818,  in  which  he  says:  "  Gen.  Jackson  is  vested 
with  full  power  to  conduct  the  war  as  he  may  think  best."  Having  re- 
ceived copies  of  the  orders  to  Gen.  Gaines  to  take  possession  of  Amelia 
island,  and  to  enter  Florida,  but  halt  and  report  to  the  department,  in 
case  the  Indians  should  shelter  themselves  under  a  Spanish  fort,  he  ad- 
dressed to  Mr.  Monroe  the  letter  to  which  reference  has  been  made  in 
the  '  correspondence.'     We  copy  it  entire : 

''Nashville,  6th  Jan.,  1818. 

"  Sir  : — A  few  days  since,  I  received  a  letter  from  the  secretary  of 
war,  of  the  17th  ult.,  with  inclosures.  Your  order  of  the  19th  ult, 
through  him  to  Brevet  Major-General  Gaines,  to  enter  the  territory  of 
Spain,  and  chastise  the  ruthless  savages  who  have  been  depredating  upon 
the  property  and  lives  of  our  citizens,  will  meet  not  only  the  approba- 
tion of  your  country,  but  the  approbation  of  Heaven.  Will  you,  how- 
ever, permit  me  to  suggest  the  catastrophe  that  might  arise  by  Gen. 
Gaines'  compliance  with  the  last  clause  of  your  order  ?  Suppose  the 
case  that  the  Indians  are  beaten  :  they  take  refuge  either  in  Pensacola 
or  St.  Augustine,  which  open  their  gates  to  them :  to  profit  by  his  vic- 
tory. Gen.  Gaines  pursues  the  fugitives,  and  has  to  halt  before  the  gar- 
rison until  he  can  communicate  with  his  government.  In  the  mean 
time  the  militia  grow  restless,  and  he  is  left  to  defend  himself  bj  the 
regulars.  The  enemy,  with  the  aid  of  their  Spanish  friends,  and  Wood- 
bine's British  partisans,  or,  if  you  please,  with  Aurey's  force,  attacks 
him.  What  may  not  be  the  result  ?  Defeat  and  massacre.  Permit  me  to 
remark,  that  the  arms  of  the  United  States  must  be  carried  to  any  point 
within  the  limits  of  East  Florida,  where  an  enemy  is  admitted  and  pro- 
tected, or  disgrace  attends. 

"  The  executive  government  have  ordered,  and,  as  I  conceive,  very 
properly,  Amelia  island  to  be  taken  possession  of.  This  order  ought  to 
be  carried  into  execution  at  all  hazards,  and  simultaneously  the  whole 
of  East  Florida  seized,  and  held  as  an  indemnity  for  the  outrages  of 
Spain  upon  the  property  of  our  citizens.  This  done,  it  puts  all  opposi- 
tion down,  secures  our  citizens  a  complete  indemnity,  and  saves  us  from 
a  war  with  Great  Britain,  or  some  of  the  continental  powers  combined 
with  Spain.     This  can  be  done  without  implicating  the  government. 


MR.  CALHOUN  AND  GEN.  JACKSON  ON  THE  SEMINOLE  WAR.    545 

Let  it  be  signified  to  me  through  any  channel,  (say  Mr.  J.  Rhea,)  that 
the  possession  of  the  Floridas  would  be  desirable  to  the  United  States^ 
and  in  sixty  days  it  will  be  accomplished. 

"  The  order  being  given  for  the  possession  of  Amelia  island,  it  ought 
to  be  executed,  or  our  enemies,  internal  and  external,  will  use  it  to  the 
disadvantage  of  the  government.  If  our  troops  enter  the  territory  of 
Spain,  in  pursuit  of  our  Indian  enemy,  all  opposition  that  they  meet  with 
must  be  put  down,  or  we  will  be  involved  in  danger  and  disgrace. 

"  I  have  the  honor,  &c. 

"  Andrew  Jackson. 

"  James  Monroe,  President  U.  S." 

The  account  of  the  reception  of  this  letter  has  been  given  ;  but  Mr. 
Calhoun's  "  correspondence  "  contains  no  information  of  an  answer,  other 
than  that  Mr.  Calhoun,  after  having  perused  the  letter,  said  to  Mr. 
Monroe,  that  it  was  a  confidential  one,  which  he  (Mr.  M.)  must  answer. 
Gen.  Jackson  in  his  "  Exposition,"  says  :  "  In  accordance  with  the  ad- 
vice of  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  availing  himself  of  the  suggestion  contained  in 
the  letter,  Mr.  Monroe  sent  for  Mr.  John  Rhea,  (then  a  member  of  con- 
gress,) showed  him  the  confidential  letter,  and  requested  him  to  answer 
it.  In  conformity  with  this  request,  Mr.  Rhea  did  answer  the  letter, 
and  informed  Gen.  Jackson  that  the  president  had  shown  him  the  con- 
fidential letter,  and  requested  him  to  state  that  he  approved  of  its  sug- 
gestions. This  answer  was  received  by  the  general  on  the  second  night 
he  remained  at  Big  Creek,  which  is  four  miles  in  advance  of  Hartford, 
Georgia,  and  before  his  arrival  at  Fort  Scott,  to  take  command  of  the 
troops  in  that  quarter.  *  *  *  Byi  the  secret  act  of  congress,  the 
president  was  authorized,  under  circumstances  then  existing,  to  seize 
and  occupy  all  Florida.  Orders  had  been  given  which  were  sufficiently 
general  in  their  terms  to  cover  that  object.  The  confidential  corres- 
pondence and  general  understanding,  made  them,  so  far  as  regarded  the 
parties,  as  e0"ectually  orders  to  take  and  occupy  the  province  of  Florida, 
as  if  that  object  had  been  declared  on  their  face." 

The  "  Exposition"  quotes  from  several  letters  subsequently  written 
to  him  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  expressions  of  approval  of  the  measures  adopted 
by  him  to  terminate  the  war ;  and  adds  :  "  On  the  25th  of  March,  1818, 
I  informed  Mr.  Calhoun  that  I  intended  to  occupy  St.  Marks,  and  on 
the  8th  of  April,  I  informed  him  that  it  was  done.  Not  a  whisper  of 
disapprobation  or  of  doubt  reached  me  from  the  government.  On  the 
5th  of  May,  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Calhoun  that  I  was  about  to  move  upon 
Pensacola,  with  a  view  of  occupying  that  place.  Again,  no  reply  was 
ever  given  disapproving  or  discountenancing  this  movement.     On  the 

35 


646  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

2d  of  June,  I  informed  Mr.  Calhoun  that  I  had  on  the  24th  of  May  en- 
tered Pensacola,  and  the  28th  had  received  the  surrender  of  the  Baran- 
cas.  Again,  no  reply  was  given  to  this  letter  expressing  any  disapproval 
of  these  acts.  In  fine,  from  the  receipt  of  the  president's  reply  to  my 
confidential  letter  of  the  6th  of  January,  1818,  through  Mr.  Rhea,  until 
the  receipt  of  the  president's  private  letter,  dated  19th  July,  1818,  I 
received  no  instructions  or  intimations  from  the  government,  public  or 
private,  that  my  operations  in  Florida  were  other  than  such  as  the  presi- 
dent and  secretary  of  war  expected  and  approved." 

To  show,  farther,  that  his  course  was  approved  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  the 
general  gives  extracts  from  letters  of  Col.  A.  P.  Hayne,  who  had  served 
in  this  campaign,  and  had  gone  to  Washington  to  settle  his  accounts. 
He  was  a  friend  and  fellow-citizen  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  Writing  to  Gen. 
Jackson  on  the  24th  of  September,  1818,  he  says:  "  The  course  the  ad- 
ministration has  thought  proper  to  adopt,  is  to  me  inexplicable.  They 
retain  St.  Marks,  and  in  the  same  breath  give  up  Pensacola.  Who  can 
comprehend  this  ?  [This  is  explained  in  the  instructions  to  surrender 
the  posts,  but  of  which,  probably,  Col.  Hayne  was  not  then  apprised.] 

*  *  *  Indeed,  sir,  I  fear  that  Mr.  Monroe  has  on  the  present  oc- 
casion yielded  to  those  about  him.  I  can  not  believe  that  it  is  the 
result  of  his  honest  convictions.  Mr.  Calhoun  certainly  thinks  with 
you  altogether,  although  after  the  decision  of  the  cabinet,  he  must  of 
cours6  nominally  support  what  has  been  done."  And  in  another  letter, 
of  Jan.  21,  1819,  after  stating  that  he  had  traveled  through  several 
states,  and  that  the  people  of  the  states  and  the  people  of  the  United 
States  at  large  approved  the  conduct  of  the  general  in  every  respect, 
says  :  "  So  does  the  administration,  to  wit :  Mr.  Monroe,  Mr.  Calhoun^ 
and  Mr.  Adams.  Mr.  Monroe  is  your  friend.  He  has  identified  you 
with  himself  After  the  most  mature  reflection  and  deliberation  upon 
all  of  your  operations,  he  has  covered  your  conduct.  But  I  am  candid 
to  confess,  that  he  (Jid  not  adopt  this  line  of  conduct  (in  my  mind)  as 
soon  as  he  ought  to  have  done.  Mr.  Adams  has  done  honor  to  his 
country  and  himself." 

Gen.  Jackson  then  gives  the  statements  of  several  gentlemen,  who 
had  told  him  in  1823,  '24,  and  '25,  that  he  had  blamed  Mr.  Crawford 
wrongfully,  and  that  Mr.  Calhoun  was  the  instigator  of  the  attacks 
made  upon  him.  Many  other  facts  are  given  by  the  general  to  substan- 
tiate his  charge  of  duplicity  against  Mr.  Calhoun ;  but  we  have,  per- 
haps, already  occupied  too  much  space  with  details  of  this  controversy 
— more,  certainly,  than  we  should  have  done,  but  for  the  additional 
light  which  this  correspondence  throws  upon  the  transactions  of  the 
Florida  war.     Upon   this  subject   we  take   occasion   to  remark,  that, 


DISSOLUTION    OF    GEN.    JACKSON's    CABINET.  547 

whether  Gen,  Jackson  did  or  did  not  strictly  and  literally  conform  to 
the  orders  of  the  government,  an  unprejudiced  mind  can  scarcely  resist 
the  conclusion,  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  question,  that  Gen. 
Jackson  believed  his  proceedings  fully  authorized  by  his  instructions 
from  the  government. 

With  respect  to  the  main  question,  a  correct  opinion  is  not  easily 
formed.  The  statements  and  testimony  of  the  parties  are  so  directly 
contradictory  as  to  be  irreconcilable  with  the  honesty  and  veracity  of 
all  concerned  in  this  affair  ;  and  yet,  after  the  lapse  of  twenty-five  years, 
when  the  public  judgment  is  far  less  influenced  by  personal  predilec- 
tions, it  would  perhaps  be  as  unsafe  to  fix  the  guilt  upon  any  particular 
individual  as  it  was  at  the  time  of  the  controversy.  The  integrity  so 
generally  conceded  to  Mr.  Calhoun  during  a  long  public  career,  as  well 
as  the  correctness  of  his  private  life,  has  been  considered  by  his  friends 
as  sufficient  to  shield  him  even  from  a  suspicion  of  falsehood.  And  yet, 
whatever  may  be  the  facts  of  the  case,  it  will  scarcely  be  alleged  that 
the  "  correspondence,"  on  the  whole,  is  sufficient  to  sustain  his  charges 
against  Gen.  Jackson  and  Mr.  Van  Buren. 


CHAPTER  XLIV. 


AS  MINISTER    TO  ENGLAND. CASE    OF    THE    CHEROKEES. 

Scarcely  had  the  last  of  the  "  Calhoun  correspondence"  been  given 
to  the  public,  when  an  event  occurred  which  served  to  increase  and  pro- 
tract the  excitement  which  the  controversy  had  produced.  It  was  the 
dissolution  of  Gen.  Jackson's  cabinet — the  consequence,  as  was  alleged, 
of  the  rupture  between  the  president  and  vice-president.  Other  occur- 
rences, however,  seem  to  have  had  a  large  share  in  producing  the  cabinet 
explosion. 

Although  the  members  of  the  cabinet  were  on  friendly  terms  with  each 
other,  they  differed  in  their  preferences  as  to  the  successor  of  Gen.  Jack- 
son. The  secretaries  of  the  treasury  and  of  the  navy  were  the  political 
friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  The  secretary  of  war  and  the  postmaster- 
general  favored  Mr.  Yan  Buren,  secretary  of  state,  the  competitor  of 
Mr.  Calhoun  for  the  succession.  The  vice-president,  who  had  been  the 
early  supporter  of  Gen.  Jackson,  had  possessed  a  larger  share  of  his 


548  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN, 

confidence  than  the  secretary  of  state,  who  had  more  recently  come  over 
to  his  support.  The  latter,  however,  had  at  this  time  acquired  a  con- 
trolling influence  over  the  president,  and  had  secured  his  preference  for 
the  succession. 

On  the  7th  of  April,  1831,  Mr.  Eaton,  the  secretary  of  war,  tendered 
his  resignation  to  the  president,  assigning  as  the  reason,  that  he  had 
entered  the  cabinet  contrary  to  his  own  wishes,  intending  at  "  the  first 
favorable  moment,  after  the  administration  should  be  in  successful  ope- 
ration, to  retire."  This  resignation  was  followed  by  that  of  Mr.  Van 
Euren,  on  the  11th,  who  alleged,  as  the  cause,  the  premature  agitation 
of  the  question  of  Gen.  Jackson's  successor,  which  it  had  been  his 
anxious  wish  and  zealous  endeavor  to  prevent.  Continuing  a  member 
of  the  cabinet  while  occupying  the  relation  to  the  country  which  he  then 
did,  (that  of  a  candidate  for  the  presidency,)  might  have  an  injurious 
effect  upon  the  conduct  of  public  affairs ;  and  he  therefore  felt  it  his 
duty  to  resign. 

Having  been  informed  of  the  president's  purpose  to  reorganize  his 
cabinet,  the  secretaries  of  the  treasury  and  of  the  navy  communicated 
their  resignations  on  the  19  th  of  April ;  that  of  the  attorney-general 
was  delayed  until  the  15th  of  June.  The  letters  of  acceptance  of  the 
resignations  of  the  retiring  cabinet  officers,  bore  full  testimony  to  their 
integrity  and  fidelity  in  the  discharge  of  their  official  duties.  In  these 
published  resignations  and  the  acceptance  of  them,  there  were  no  indica- 
tions of  any  personal  differences  between  any  of  these  officers  and  the 
president. 

The  new  cabinet  was  composed  of  Edward  Livingston,  of  Louisiana, 
secretary  of  state;  Louis  M'Lane,  of  Delaware,  (recalled  from  London 
for  that  purpose,)  secretary  of  the  treasury  ;  Lewis  Cass,  of  Ohio,  secre- 
tary of  war  ;  Levi  Woodbury,  secretary  of  the  navy  ;  Roger  B.  Taney, 
of  Maryland,  attorney-general ;  and  William  T.  Barry,  of  Kentucky, 
was  continued  postmaster-general,  until  1835,  when,  having  been 
appointed  minister  to  Spain,  he  was  succeeded  by  Amos  Kendall,  fourth 
auditor  of  the  treasury.  Mr.  Yan  Buren  was  appointed  minister  to 
England  in  the  place  of  Mr.  M'Lane.  Mr.  Eaton  was  made  governor 
of  Florida,  and,  in  1836,  was  appointed  minister  to  Spain  in  the  place 
of  Mr.  Barry,  deceased. 

There  had  been  much  speculation  as  to  the  causes  of  the  dissolution 
of  the  cabinet ;  and  from  certain  remarks  of  Mr.  Branch  in  a  letter  of 
May  3,  1831,  to  a  friend  in  North  Carolina,  some  interesting  develop- 
ment was  anticipated.  Mr.  B.  says  :  "  The  people  have  a  right  to  know 
the  whole  truth ;  from  whence  the  alleged  discord  originated  ;  by  whom 
and  for  what  purpose  it  had  been  fostered ;  and  in  what  respect  and 


DISSOLUTION    OF    GEN.  JACKSON'S    CABINET.  549 

wherefore  it  has  been  connected  with  the  public  administration  of  the 
affairs  of  the  nation."  He  had  gone  as  far  as  a  man  of  honor  could  go, 
to  promote  harmony  in  the  cabinet ;  but  he  had  been  expected  to  go 
still  farther,  and  not  having  done  so,  it  had  been  held  good  cause  for  his 
dismissal. 

The  public  anxiety  was  soon  relieved.  The  United  States  Telegraph, 
which  had  become  the  organ  of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  friends,  anticipated 
forthcoming  disclosures  by  the  following  among  other  significant  ques- 
tions :  "  Will  the  Globe  deny  that  Mr.  Ingham,  Gov.  Branch,  and  Mr. 
Berrien  were  dismissed  because  they  refused  to  compel  their  families  to 
associate  with  that  of  Major  Eaton  ?"  There  had  been  unfavorable 
reports  in  circulation  respecting  Mrs.  Eaton,  who,  though  she  may  have 
been  as  chaste  as  the  wife  of  Caesar,  was  unfortunately  not,  like  her, 
above  suspicion.  As  these  reports  had  seriously  affected  her  standing 
in  society  at  "Washington,  the  three  gentlemen  above  named  had  inter- 
dicted social  intercourse  between  their  families  and  Mr.  Eaton's.  Mr. 
Eaton  and  his  wife  being  favorites  of  the  president,  this  regulation  of 
the  two  secretaries  and  the  attorney-general  excited  his  resentment ;  and 
Col.  Johnson,  a  member  of  congress,  it  was  alleged,  had  previously 
waited  on  them,  and  informed  them  that  it  was  the  president's  determi- 
nation to  remove  them  unless  they  conformed  to  his  wishes  in  this 
matter. 

A  few  days  before  Mr.  Ingham  left  Washington  for  his  residence  in 
Pennsylvania,  he  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Eaton,  saying  that  the 
Telegraph  contained  the  remark,  that  "  the  families  of  the  secretaries 
of  the  treasury  and  of  the  navy  and  of  the  attorney-general  refused  to 
associate  with  her,"  (Mrs.  Eaton  ;)  and  as  that  paper  was  friendly  to  Mr. 
Ingham,  he  desired  to  know  whether  he  (Mr.  I.)  sanctioned  or  would 
disavow  this  publication.  Mr.  Ingham,  in  a  brief  reply,  considers  the 
demand  too  absurd  to  merit  an  answer ;  and  concludes  by  saying :  "  I 
take  the  occasion  to  say,  that  you  must  be  not  a  little  deranged  to 
imagine,  that  any  blustering  of  yours  could  induce  me  to  disavow  what 
all  the  inhabitants  of  this  city  know,  and  perhaps  half  the  people  of  the 
United  States  believe  to  be  true."  The  answer  charges  Mr.  Ingham 
with  having  added  insult  to  injury,  and  demands  ^^satisfaction  for  the 
wrong."  In  his  reply  Mr.  I.  says:  "  I  perfectly  understand  the  part  you 
are  made  to  play  in  the  farce  you  are  made  to  act  before  the  American 
people.  I  am  not  to  be  intimidated  by  threats,  or  provoked  by  abuse, 
to  any  act  inconsistent  with  the  pity  and  contempt  which  your  condition 
and  vionduct  inspire."  Mr.  Eaton  closes  the  correspondence — calls  Mr. 
La  "  great  coward" — a  "contemptible  fellow" — and  says:  "Nothing 
more  will  be  received  short  of  an  acceptance  of  my  demand   of  Satur- 


550  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

day,  and  nothing  more  be  said  to  me  until  face  to  face  we  meet.  It  is 
not  my  nature  to  brook  your  insults,  nor  will  they  be  submitted  to." 

The  threats  uttered  in  this  letter,  with  certain  movements  by  Mr. 
Eaton  and  his  friends,  excited  apprehensions  in  the  mind  of  Mr.  I., 
who,  the  next  day,  (June  21),  addressed  to  the  president  a  letter, 
expressing  the  belief,  that  certain  "  officers  of  the  government  supposed 
to  be  in  the  special  confidence  of  the  president,  had  attempted  to  way- 
lay him,  (Mr.  Ingham,)  for  the  purpose  of  assassination."  The  officers 
suspected  of  this  design  severally  denied,  in  letters  to  the  president,  all 
knowledge  of  any  such  purpose  as  that  with  which  they  had  been 
charged.  These  letters  were  forwarded  by  the  president  to  Mr.  Ing- 
ham, who,  in  reply,  mentioned  facts  and  circumstances  upon  which  his 
apprehensions  were  founded,  and  challenged  a  legal  investigation  of  the 
affair.  The  president  directed  an  answer  by  N.  P.  Trist,  informing 
Mr.  Ingham  that  he  does  not  consider  the  facts  stated  by  him  sufficient 
to  sustain  his  charge ;  but  assures  him  protection,  if  he  will  come  to 
the  seat  of  government,  and  prosecute  the  supposed  offenders  in  the 
courts  of  the  district. 

But  to  return  to  the  main  question.  The  Globe  editor,  in  his  paper 
of  the  19th  of  July,  1831,  said  he  had  received  a  letter  from  Col.  John- 
son, in  which  he  says :  "  Gren.  Jackson  never  authorized  me  to  require 
social  intercourse,  &c.  &c.  He  always  dislcaimed  it.  I  told  the  par- 
ties so."  Here,  then,  was  a  question  of  veracity  to  be  settled  between 
the  parties.  And  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Berrien  the  next  day,  Mr.  Blair, 
of  the  G-lobe,  says  it  was  in  consequence  of  a  supposed  combination 
"  to  disgrace  Major  Eaton  and  coerce  his  dismission  from  the  cabinet," 
that  he  had  taken  the  attitude  he  had  assumed  in  relation  to  the  cir- 
cumstances which  affected  the  harmony  of  his  cabinet ;  and  that  he 
(Blair)  had  before  him  the  identical  paper  which  the  president  had 
read  to  him  (Berrien)  and  the  two  secretaries,  Branch  and  Ingham,  and 
in  which  he  expressly  says :  "I  do  not  claim  the  right  to  interfere,  in 
any  manner,  in  the  domestic  relations  or  personal  intercourse  of  any 
member  of  my  cabinet ;  nor  have  I  in  any  manner  attempted  it." 

Mr.  Berrien,  after  a  farther  interchange  of  letters  with  Mr.  Blair, 
addressed  ''  the  public"  through  the  National  Intelligencer.  He  dis- 
claimed having  had  any  part  in  an  attempt  to  coerce  Mr.  Eaton  to 
retire  from  the  cabinet ;  and  he  endeavored  to  show  that  it  was  not  in 
reference  to  this  that  Col.  Johnson  called  on  him.  It  was  shortly  after 
he  had  given  an  evening  party,  to  which  Mrs.  Eaton  had  not  been 
invited.  He  was  surprised  at  the  message  of  Col.  Johnson.  He  says  : 
"  I  could  make  no  mistake  as  to  its  character,  for  there  was  a  repeated 
reference  to  the  large  parties  which  had  been  then  recently  given  by 


551 

Messrs.  Branch  and  Ingham  and  myself.  Such  a  mistake,  if  it  had 
been  one,  would  have  been  instantly  corrected  from  the  nature  of  my 
reply.  If  the  complaint  had  been  of  a  combination  to  evict  Major 
Eatojifrom  office^  and  not  to  exclude  his  family  from  society^  the  refer- 
ence to  these  evening  parties  would  have  been  idle ;  and  my  declaration 
that  I  would  not  permit  the  president  to  control  the  social  intercourse 
of  myself  and  family,  would  have  been  instantly  met  by  an  explanation, 
which  would  have  removed  the  impression  from  the  minds  of  Messrs. 
Branch  and  Ingham  and  myself.  Yet  we  all  parted  with  Col.  Johnson, 
with  a  clear  conviction  that  such  a  proposition  had  been  made ;  and 
feeling  as  we  all  did,  that  an  indignity  had  been  offered  to  us,  there  was, 
as  I  believe,  no  difference  of  opinion  between  us  as  to  the  course  we 
ought  to  pursue,  if  this  proposition  should  be  avowed  and  pressed  by 
the  president. 

This  conversation,  Mr.  Berrien  said,  took  place  on  Wednesday  even- 
ing, January  27.  On  Friday,  his  colleagues  had  their  interview  with 
the  president,  and  on  Saturday  he  had  his.  The  president's  personal 
friends  having  interposed,  he  had  become  sensible  of  the  impropriety  of  his 
projected  course.  He  referred  to  the  parties  that  had  been  given,  and 
said  if  he  had  been  convinced  that  there  had  been  a  combination  to 
exclude  Mrs.  Eaton  from  society,  he  would  have  required  the  resigna- 
tions of  himself  and  his  colleagues.  But  he  had  become  satisfied  that 
there  had  been  no  such  combination.  Mr.  B.  says  :  "  He  showed  me 
no  paper — spoke  to  me  of  none — intimated  to  me  no  terms  which  he 
would  hereafter  require.  By  his  declaration  that  he  did  not  intend  to 
press  the  requisition  made  through  Col.  Johnson,  I  considered  the  object 
of  the  interview  to  be,  to  explain  to  me  the  motives  under  which  he 
had  acted,  and  to  announce  the  change  of  his  determination." 

Mr.  Ingham,  who  had  taken  full  notes  of  the  conversation  with  Col. 
Johnson,  corroborated  the  statement  of  Mr.  Berrien,  and  gave  a  still 
more  minute  detail  of  that  conversation.  Col.  J.  said  the  president  had 
hoped  that  their  families  would  have  been  willing  to  invite  Mrs.  Eaton 
to  their  large  parties,  to  give  the  appearance  of  an  ostensible  inter- 
course, adding  that  he  was  so  much  excited  that  he  was  like  a  roaring 
lion.  He  had  heard  that  the  lady  of  a  foreign  minister  had  joined  in 
the  conspiracy  against  Mrs.  Eaton,  and  that  he  had  sworn  that  he 
would  send  her  and  her  husband  home,  if  he  could  not  put  an  end  to 
such  doings.  This  was  said  at  an  interview  between  Col.  J.  and  Mr. 
Ingham  alone.  In  the  evening  of  the  same  day  was  the  meeting  at 
Mr.  Berrien's,  at  which  the  conversation  related  by  him  took  place. 
They  attended  a  party  the  same  evening  at  Col.  Towson's,  where  a 
report  was  already  current  that  they  were  to  be  removed.     Col.  John- 


552  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

son  called  on  him  (Mr.  Ingham)  the  next  morning,  and  said  he  ought 
perhaps  to  have  been  more  frank  last  evening,  and  to  have  told  them 
positively  that  the ,  president  would  remove  them,  unless  they  agreed 
that  their  families  should  visit  Mrs.  Eaton,  and  invite  her  to  their 
large  parties.  And  the  colonel  mentioned  the  names  of  persons  whom 
the  president  had  designated  for  the  two  secretaryships.  In  the  even- 
ing he  called  again,  and  said  the  president  had  drawn  up  a  paper 
explanatory  of  what  he  expected  of  them  5  that  some  of  his  Tennessee 
friends  had  been  with  him ;  that  his  passion  had  subsided,  and  he  had 
changed  his  ground ;  he  only  wished  that  they  should  assist  in  putting 
down  the  slanders  against  Mrs.  Eaton,  whom  he  believed  to  be  inno- 
cent. On  the  next  day  they  had  the  interview  with  the  president 
which  has  been  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Berrien.  Mr.  Ingham  had  no  recol- 
lection, nor  had  he  taken  any  note,  of  any  paper  read  to  them  by  the 
president. 

The  statements  of  Messrs.  Ingham  and  Berrien  are  confirmed  by  Mr. 
Branch,  who,  writing  to  Mr.  Berrien,  says:  "  You  can  very  well  ima- 
gine my  surprise,  on  reading  the  colonel's  letter,  from  what  you  your- 
self experienced.  My  recollections  of  the  interview  will  most  abun- 
dantly corroborate  all  that  you  have  said."  Mr.  Branch  also  positively 
declares  that  no  paper  was  read  to  them  by  Gen.  Jackson  at  the  inter- 
view with  the  president. 

Col.  Johnson,  in  letters  to  Messrs.  Berrien  and  Ingham,  in  July,  1831, 
reiterates  his  former  statement,  that  the  president  had  disclaimed,  in  the 
paper  before  referred  to,  all  intention  to  regulate  the  social  intercourse 
of  the  members  of  his  cabinet ;  and  that  he  (Col.  J.)  had,  on  his  own  re- 
sponsibility, made  the  inquiry  whether  they  could  not,  at  those  large  and 
promiscuous  parties,  invite  Maj.  Eaton  and  his  family. 

We  have  thus  sketched  all  that  was  deemed  essential  to  an  understand- 
ing of  this  cabinet  controversy — more,  perhaps,  than  every  one  will 
think  the  subject  deserves.  Different  readers  will  regard  the  affair  with 
different  degrees  of  interest ;  and  its  prominence^  if  not  its  importance, 
as  an  item  of  political  history,  seemed  to  claim  for  it  a  place  in  our 
record.  In  judging  of  its  comparative  influence  as  a  cause  of  the  dis- 
ruption of  the  cabinet,  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  diificulties  be- 
tween the  parties  preceded  the  Calhoun  controversy,  although  the  explo- 
sion did  not  occur  until  some  time  after  the  publication  of  his  "  corres- 
pondence." 

Mr.  M'Lane  having  been  appointed  secretary  of  the  treasury  in  presi- 
dent Jackson's  new  cabinet,  in  the  summer  of  1831,  Mr.  Van  Buren  was 
appointed  to  take  his  place  as  minister  at  London.  The  appointment 
was  made  during  the  recess  of  the  senate  and  the  nomination  was  made 


MR.    VAN   BUREN's   REJECTION   A&    MINISTER   TO    ENGLAND.  553 

to  that  body  at  the  next  session.  An  excited  debate  of  several  days' 
continuance,  and  exhibiting  a  strong  personal  dislike  to  Mr.  Yan  Buren, 
took  place  on  this  nomination,  which  was  finally  rejected  by  the  casting 
vote  of  the  vice  president.  The  principal  ground  of  opposition  to  the 
nomination,  was  the  character  of  his  instructions  to  Mr.  M'Lane,  re- 
specting the  West  India  negotiation. 

Mr.  Holmes  said  he  was  against  him  because  he  had  humbled  us  in 
the  eyes  of  foreign  nations.  He  had  surrendered  the  rights  of  his 
country  to  Great  Britian  to  sustain  his  party.  He  had  also  been  ap- 
pointed to  fill  a  vacancy  created  in  the  recess  of  the  senate.  This  he 
disapproved,  except  for  the  most  imperative  reasons.  It  was  compelling 
the  senate  to  approve  the  appointment,  or  subject  us  to  the  loss  of  the 
outfit.  Suspicion  also  rested  on  the  nominee  as  having  contrived,  or 
contributed  to  bring  about,  the  dissolution  of  the  cabinet. 

Mr.  Marcy  challenged  an  inquiry  into  the  causes  of  that  event.  Mr. 
Van  Buren  had  denied  all  agency  in  the  matter,  and  had  challenged  the 
world  for  proof. 

Mr.  Chambers  resisted  the  nomination  exclusively  on  the  ground  of 
Mr.  Van  Buren's  instructions  to  Mr.  M'Lane,  in  which  he  had  violated 
the  honor  of  the  nation,  and  insulted  the  American  people  in  the  person 
of  their  government ;  and  had  disclosed  a  total  ignorance  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  feelings  which  should  adorn  the  diplomatist.  He  had  in- 
structed our  minister  to  press  upon  a  foreign  government  the  misconduct 
of  one  part  of  the  American  family  in  the  relations  of  our  government 
with  that  foreign  power,  and  the  more  amiable  and  kind  feelings  of  an- 
other division  of  it.  A  most  revolting  and  unheard  of  experiment  was 
to  be  made,  (other  supplications  having  failed  to  move  the  royal  sympa- 
thy,) how  far  a  condemnation  of  ourselves  would  disarm  a  British  throne 
of  its  haughty,  supercilious  disdain  of  a  just  and  honest  demand. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Maryland,  said  the  secretary  was  not  responsible  for 
the  instructions :  they  had  been  given  by  order  of  the  president,  who 
was  the  only  responsible  person  known  to  the  constitution.  The  secre- 
tary was  under  oath,  "  well  and  faithfully  to  execute  the  trust  cor.mitted 
to  him."  The  senator  from  Maine  (Mr.  Holmes)  had  said,  "  Mr.M'Lanc 
had  been  sent  to  bow  and  cringe  at  the  feet  of  the  British  minister." 
Mr.  M'Lane  was  not  made  of  such  suppliant  materials.  He  had  asked  only 
what  was  right,  and  what  his  country  required.  He  had  convinced  the 
British  ministry  that  they  had  departed  from  the  rigid  construction  of 
the  act  of  parliament  of  July,  1825,  in  the  cases  of  France,  Russia  and 
Spain  ;  and  that  they  could  not,  therefore,  in  justice,  refuse  a  similar  de- 
parture, in  the  demand  of  equal  justice  to  the  United  States.  The 
great  offense  was,  that  the  negotiation  had  succeeded  under  the  instruc- 


554  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tions  given  "by  Mr.  Van  Buren,  and  failed  under  those  of  another — a 
crime  never  to  be  forgiven  by  the  opponents  of  Gen.  Jackson. 

Mr.  Clayton  said  the  minister  had  been  sent  with  instructions  to  fawn, 
and  beg  as  a  boon,  at  the  footstool  of  a  foreign  power,  what  we  were  en- 
titled to  as  a  right ;  to  abandon  as  untenable  "  pretensions"  that  had 
always  been  insisted  on  as  a  matter  of  justice ;  and  to  consider  our  gov- 
ernment in  error  for  having  "  too  long  resisted  the  rights  of  Great 
Britain."  He  (Mr.  C.)  would  this  day,  by  his  vote,  say  to  England, 
we  would  never  crouch  for  favors,  and  to  all  our  ministers,  now  and  for- 
ever, that  we  would  condemn  every  attempt  to  carry  our  family  divisions 
beyond  our  own  household. 

Mr.  Clay  based  his  opposition  on  the  same  ground,  and  went  into  an 
examination  of  the  "  pretensions,"  as  they  had  been  called  by  Mr.  Ys^ 
Buren,  and  which  our  government  had  been  said  to  have  unjustly  put  for- 
ward, and  pertinaciously  maintained.  He  was  opposed  to  the  nomina- 
tion also,  because  the  nominee  had,  as  he  believed,  introduced  the  odious 
system  of  proscription  into  the  general  government ;  the  system  prac- 
ticed in  the  gentleman's  own  state  by  the  party  of  which  he  was  the  re- 
puted head.  It  was  a  detestable  system,  drawn  from  the  worst  periods  of 
the  Roman  republic  :  and  if  the  offices  and  honors  of  the  American 
people  were  to  be  put  up  to  a  scramble  to  be  decided  by  every  presiden- 
tial election,  our  government  would  finally  end  in  a  despotism  as  inexor- 
able as  that  at  Constantinople. 

Mr.  Marcy  replied.  It  was  the  habit,  he  said,  of  some  gentlemen  to 
speak  with  reproach  of  the  politics  of  New  York.  The  state  was  large, 
and  had  great  and  diversified  interests.  It  had  men  of  enterprise  and 
talents  who  aspired  to  distinction.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  her 
politics  should  excite  more  interest  at  home,  and  attract  more  attention 
abroad,  than  those  of  some  other  states.  It  might  be  that  the  politi- 
cians of  the  United  States  were  not  so  fastidious  as  some  gentlemen  were, 
as  to  disclosing  their  principles  of  action.  They  boldly  preached  what 
they  practiced.  When  they  were  contending  for  victory,  they  avowed 
their  intention  of  enjoying  the  fruits  of  it.  If  they  were  defeated,  they 
expected  to  retire  from  office.  If  they  were  successful,  they  claimed,  as 
a  matter  of  right,  the  advantages  of  success.  They  saw  nothing  wrong 
in  the  rule,  that  to  the  victor  belong  the  spoils  of  the  enemy. 

Mr.  M.  also  replied  to  the  main  objection  of  gentlemen.  The  late 
administration — probably  in  the  hope  of  getting  better  terms — had 
refused  those  offered  by  Great  Britain,  until,  finding  that  better  terms, 
claimed  as  a  right,  could  not  be  sustained,  they  concluded  to  take 
those  first  offered  ;  which  were  then  refused  ;  and  the  colonial  trade  was 
lost.     As  negotiation  had  been  refused  to  our  government,  it  was  neces- 


CASE   OP   THE    CHEROKEES.  555 

sary  to  offer  some  excuse  for  attempting  it  again.  The  administration 
had  been  changed,  as  was  publicly  known,  from  the  hands  of  those  who 
had  refused  the  offered  terms,  into  the  hands  of  those  who  thought  they 
ought  to  have  been  accepted ;  and  he  saw  nothing  wrong  in  instructing 
Mr.  M'Lane  to  use  this  fact  in  removing  any  obstacle  to  negotiation. 

Mr.  Brown  thought  Mr.  Van  Buren's  success  in  the  management  of 
our  diplomatic  affairs  bore  honorable  testimony  to  his  abilities  as  a 
statesman.  He  had,  while  secretary  of  state,  accomplished  more  in  less 
time  than  any  of  his  predecessors.  A  comparison  of  the  present  admin- 
istration with  that  which  preceded  it,  would  redound  greatly  to  the 
credit  of  the  existing  administration. 

Mr.  Clay  said  it  had  been  alleged,  that  the  cause  of  the  opposition  to 
the  nomination  was  the  mortification  felt  at  the  success  of  the  adminis- 
tration in  recovering  the  colonial  trade,  and  in  its  general  success  in  the 
management  of  our  foreign  affairs,  He  thought  time  would  show  that 
what  had  been  done  had  placed  the  colonial  trade  in  a  more  disadvan- 
tageous condition  than  it  was  in  before.  He  compared  the  diplomatic 
achievements  of  the  two  administrations.  The  successful  negotiations 
credited  to  the  present  had  been  commenced,  and  were  in  favorable  pro- 
gress, under  the  preceding  administration,  and  one  of  them  had  proceed- 
ed so  far  as  to  want  little  more  than  the  signature  of  the  parties  to  the 
treaty.  The  conclusion  of  the  French  treaty  under  this  administration, 
the  world  knew,  would  not  have  been  obtained,  but  for  the  revolution  of 
July.  He  then  enumerated  the  diplomatic  acts  of  the  preceding  admin- 
istration. Mr.  C.  remarked,  in  relation  to  the  responsibility  of  a  secre- 
tary of  state,  that  he  was  equally  responsible  with  the  president  by 
whom  the  instructions  were  sanctioned. 

Other  senators  participated  in  the  debate :  Messrs.  Foot,  Webster, 
Ewing,  Poindexter,  Miller,  Hayne,  Frelinghuysen  and  Moore,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  appointment ;  and  Messrs.  Forsyth  and  Smith  in  its  favor. 
The  four  southern  senators.  Miller  and  Hayne,  of  South  Carolina,  Poin- 
dexter, of  Mississippi,  and  Moore,  of  Alabama,  were  friends  of  Mr.  Cal- 
houn ;  and  their  opposition  appeared  to  have  proceeded  from  Mr.  Van 
Buren's  supposed  agency  in  causing  the  dissolution  of  the  cabinet,  and 
from  their  dislike  to  him  as  a  politician.  They  had  been  ardent  sup- 
porters of  the  administration  of  Gren.  Jackson. 

If  party  expediency  was  in  any  measure  consulted  in  the  rejection  of 
Mr.  Van  Buren,  his  opponents  committed  an  error.  The  effect  of  their 
hostility  was  rather  to  increase  than  to  diminish  his  popularity. 

The  case  of  the  Cherokees  was  rapidly  approaching  a  crisis.  An  act 
had  been  passed  by  the  legislature  of  G-eorgia,  in  December,  1830,  an- 
nulling the  government  and  laws  of  the  Indians,  and  enforcing  the  laws 


556  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  the  state  within  the  territory.  This  act  also  m^de  it  a  misdemeanor 
for  white  men  to  reside  within  the  limits  of  the  Cherokee  nation  after 
the  1st  of  March,  1831,  without  license  from  the  governor  or  his  agent, 
and  without  having  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  the  state.  Under  this  act,  the  Kev.  Mr.  Worcester,  a  missionary,  and 
five  others,  were  arrested  soon  after  the  law  went  into  operation.  A 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  issued,  directed  to  the  Georgia  commissioner 
having  them  in  custody,  requiring  him  to  show  cause  for  their  capture 
and  detention ;  who  returned  upon  the  writ  that  the  prisoners  had  been 
arrested  under  the  act  of  the  state,  he  having  been  duly  appointed  com- 
missioner. 

The  discharge  of  the  defendants  was  demanded  by  their  counsel,  on 
the  ground  that  the  act  under  which  they  had  been  apprehended,  was 
contrary  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  state  of  Greorgia.  The  judge  gave  an  elaborate  opinion,  main- 
taining the  constitutionality  of  the  laws  and  the  legality  of  the  arrest. 
But  as  Worcester  and  one  of  the  others  were  missionaries,  and  one  of 
them  was  a  postmaster ;  as  they  were  there  by  the  consent  of  the  gene- 
ral government  for  the  purpose  of  civilizing  and  Christianizing  the 
Indians ;  and  as  they  were  government  agents  for  the  disbursement  of 
public  moneys  for  that  purpose,  he  discharged  them  under  the  provision 
of  the  state  law  which  excepted  all  agents  of  the  general  government 
from  its  provisions.  The  other  four  persons  were  bound  over  to  answer 
for  the  misdemeanor  charged  against  them. 

Mr.  Worcester  was  soon  after  removed  from  the  office  of  postmaster 
at  New  Echota,  with  the  view,  as  was  supposed,  to  make  way  for  his 
arrest.  This  supposition  was  soon  verified.  Letters  were  addressed, 
(May  16,)  by  Gov.  Gilmer,  to  Rev.  Messrs.  Worcester  and  Thompson, 
informing  them  that  the  general  government  did  not  recognize  the  mis- 
sionaries as  its  agents,  and  advising  them  to  remove  from  the  territor}^ 
without  delay,  or  comply  with  the  law  of  the  state  by  taking  the  con- 
stitutional oath,  in  order  to  avoid  the  punishment  imposed  by  the  law 
for  disobedience. 

A  number  of  persons  were  arrested,  among  whom  were  Dr.  Butler, 
and  Rev.  Messrs.  Worcester  and  Thompson,  Presbyterian  missionaries, 
and  one  or  more  Methodist  preachers.  Several  of  them  were  most 
cruelly  treated  by  the  guard,  having  been  conveyed  in  chains,  and  one 
of  them.  Dr.  Butler,  having  a  chain  about  his  neck,  and  fastened  to  the 
horse  on  which  the  soldier  rode  who  conveyed  him.  Ten  of  them  were 
indicted,  convicted,  and  sentenced  to  four  years  imprisonment.  Only 
Dr.  Butler  and  Mr  Worcester  were  imprisoned  ;  the  others  having  been 
pardoned  by  the  governor  on  their  giving  assurance  that  they  would  not 


CASE    OF    THE    CHE10KEES.  557 

again  violate  the  laws.     Mr.  Worcester  applied  to  the  supreme  court  of 
the  TTnited  States  for  relief. 

The  conviction  of  the  missionaries  took  place  in  September,  1831. 
On  the  1st  of  March,  1832,  the  case  of  Worcester  against  the  state  of 
Georgia  was  decided  by  the  supreme  court ;  and  the  laws  of  that  state 
under  which  possession  had  been  taken  of  the  Cherokee  country,  and  per- 
sons had  been  punished  for  residing  therein,  were  declared  to  be  contrary 
to  the  constitution,  treaties,  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  ought 
to  be  reversed  and  annulled.  Mr.  Worcester  was  therefore  ordered,  by  a 
special  mandate  from  this  court  to  the  superior  court  of  Georgia,  to  be 
discharged. 

The  opinion  of  the  court  was  delivered  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall. 
A  separate  opinion,  concurring  with  that  of  the  court,  was  delivered  by 
Justice  M'Lean.  Both  opinions  were  elaborate,  and  of  great  length. 
Justice  Baldwin  dissented.  We  give  a  synopsis  of  the  opinion  of  the 
court,  as  published  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  March  5th. 

The  mandate  of  the  supreme  court  was  disregarded,  and  the  mission- 
aries kept  in  prison,  without  any  hope  of  liberation  before  another  ses- 
sion of  the  supreme  court,  January,  1833,  when  the  court  would  pro- 
bably enjoin  the  marshal  of  the  district  of  Georgia  to  summon  the  posse 
comitatus^  and  the  president  of  the  United  States  to  place  the  army  and 
navy  at  the  service  of  the  civil  authority,  if  necessary,  to  carry  the  de- 
cree into  effect. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  survey  of  the  Cherokee  lands,  and  the  disposal 
of  them  by  lottery,  proceeded.  The  missionaries,  indisposed  to  protract 
the  controversy,  informed  the  authorities  of  Georgia  that  they  had  or- 
dered the  discontinuance  of  their  suit ;  and  the  state  being  no  longer 
threatened  with  coercion,  and  the  question  of  the  continuance  of  the 
confinement  of  the  missionaries  being  left  to  the  magnanimity  of  the  state, 
they  were  discharged,  by  order  of  the  governor,  on  the  1 4th  of  January, 
1833. 

The  Indians  continued  to  be  disturbed  in  the  possession  of  their  lands, 
and  the  executive  persisted  in  refusing  them  protection.  An  offer  was 
made  them  by  the  general  government  for  their  lands  east  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi. A  council  was  held  in  May  to  consider  the  subject ;  but  the 
proposition  was  declined.  The  peculiar  conduct  of  the  government  in 
this  matter  did  not  escape  the  notice  of  the  Cherokees.  Their  treaties 
had  been  uniformly  recognized  by  the  government.  Georgia  herself  had 
recognized  their  validity  ;  and  the  supreme  court  had  so  decided.  The 
government  still  offered  to  pay  them  for  their  lands,  which  they  consider- 
ed as  tantamount  to  a  recognition  of  their  right  to  them ;  but  in  case 
they  refused  to  treat,  allowed  Georgia,  in  the  face  of  solemn  treaties,  to 


558  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

grant  the  lands  to  her  own  citizens  without  compensation  to  the  abori^- 
nal  owners. 

Various  expedients  were  adopted  to  effect  their  removal.  Agents 
were  sent  among  them  to  enrol  all  who  could  be  persuaded  to  emigrate 
on  the  conditions  proposed  by  the  government ;  and  a  new  attempt  was 
made  to  enter  into  a  treaty,  to  which  the  Cherokees  were  indisposed. 

The  president  was  anxious  to  effect  a  settlement  of  this  unpleasant 
controversy.  This  anxiety  was  supposed  to  have  been  increased  by  the 
dilemma  in  which  he  had  placed  himself.  He  had  just  aided  in  suppress- 
ing an  attempt  by  South  Carolina  to  nullify  an  act  of  congress.  He 
had  issued  the  proclamation,  in  which  he  had  declared  the  authority  of 
the  supreme  court  to  decide  questions  involving  the  constitutionality  of 
laws ;  and  he  had  recommended  the  passage  of  a  law  for  the  enforcement 
of  the  collection  of  the  revenues  in  that  state  ;  while  he  refused  to  em- 
ploy the  force  at  his  command  to  protect  the  Cherokees  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  rights  guarantied  to  them  by  treaties  which  this  same  judicial 
tribunal  had  pronounced  binding  upon  the  general  government.  Mr. 
Calhoun  had  noticed  this  predicament  of  the  president  in  the  discussion 
upon  the  "  force  bill,"  as  it  was  called.  He  said  :  "  The  president  had 
laid  it  down  that  the  tribunal  of  the  supreme  court  was,  in  the  last  re- 
sort, the  only  arbiter  of  the  difference  in  the  construction  of  the  consti- 
tutionality of  the  laws.  On  this  point  there  seems  to  have  been  a  great 
change  in  the  opinion  of  the  executive  within  the  last  twelve  months. 
The  president  had  not  held  this  opinion  in  reference  to  the  resistance 
of  the  state  of  Georgia.  A  narrow  river  only  divides  the  territory  of 
Georgia  from  that  of  South  Carolina ;  yet,  on  the  one  side,  the  power 
of  the  supreme  court,  as  the  arbiter,  in  the  last  resort,  is  to  be  sustained, 
while,  on  the  other  side,  the  will  of  the  executive  is  to  be  supreme." 

The  course  of  the  president  on  the  Carolina  question,  raised  for  a 
time  the  hopes  of  the  Cherokees.  Their  paper  remarked  :  "  The  su- 
preme court  of  the  United  States  have  decided  the  question  of  our  case 
favorably,  and  the  president  in  his  proclamation  to  the  people  of  South 
Carolina  having  promptly  declared  the  supremacy  of  the  constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States  over  state  authority,  there  was  every  rea- 
son to  believe,  that  he  would  ultimately  enforce  the  treaties  and  inter- 
course act  for  our  protection." 

The  protracted  Indian  difficulties  were  at  length  terminated  by  a 
treaty  concluded  with  their  head  men  and  chiefs,  the  29th  of  December, 
1835,  by  Wm.  Carroll  and  John  F.  Schermerhorn,  on  behalf  of  the 
United  States.  The  sum  stipulated  to  be  paid  for  their  lands,  was 
$5,000,000 ;  to  which  a  supplementary  article  adds  $600,000  to  defray 
the  expense  of  removal  and  to  cover  all  claims  for  spoliations,  and  $100,- 
000  more  to  the  national  fund. 


PUBLIC    LANDS,  559 

On  the  18tli  of  May,  1836,  when  the  resolution  for  the  ratification  of 
the  treaty  came  up  before  the  senate  for  consideration,  Mr.  Clay  moved 
an  amendment,  declaring,  that  the  writing  purporting  to  be  a  treaty  had 
not  been  made  by  authority  on  the  part  of  the  Cherokee  tribe  competent 
to  bind  it,  and  was  therefore  not  a  valid  treaty ;  and  advising  the  presi- 
dent to  open  a  new  negotiation.  The  motion  of  Mr.  Clay,  however, 
was  unsuccessful;  and  the  treaty  was  confirmed,  31  to  15. 

The  Cherokees  had  for  some  time  been  divided  into  two  parties,  head- 
ed, respectively,  by  Ross  and  Ridge.  The  party  adhering  to  the  latter, 
had  consented  to  the  treaty,  believing  they  could  never  prosper  under 
the  laws  of  Georgia ;  the  former  protested  against  the  sale  of  their  lands 
and  their  removal  to  the  west. 


CHAPTER  XLV. 

PUBLIC      LANDS. INTERNAL      IMPROVEMENTS. PRESIDENTIAL      VETOES. 

TARIFF      OF      1832. APPORTIONMENT       UNDER       THE       FIFTH     CENSUS. 

PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION. RETURN    OF    THE    LAND    BILL. 

The  1st  session  of  the  22d  congress  commenced  the  5th  of  December, 
'1831,  and  was  protracted  to  the  16th  of  July,  1832.  This  session  was 
distinguished  for  the  number  of  important  subjects  which  engaged  the 
deliberations  of  congress,  and  for  the  free  use  of  the  executive  veto. 

The  subject  of  the  public  lands,  so  prolific  of  discussion  in  former 
years,  was  again  agitated  at  the  present  session.  Various  propositions 
in  relation  to  the  disposal  of  them  were  made,  none  of  which  received  a 
final  and  favorable  action  in  both  houses.  In  the  senate,  the  subject 
was  referred  to  the  committee  on  manufactures,  with  instructions  to  in- 
quire into  the  expediency  of  reducing  the  price  of  public  lands,  and  of 
ceding  them  to  the  states  in  which  they  were  situated,  on  reasonable 
terms.  The  reference  of  the  question  of  the  'public  lands  to  the  com- 
mittee on  manufacUires^  was  thought  by  some  to  be  intended  to  em- 
barrass Mr.  Clay,  as  being  both  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  a  can- 
didate for  the  presidency.  Perhaps,  however,  this  reference  was  made 
from  a  supposed  bearing  of  the  question  upon  the  tariff ;  the  modifica- 
tion of  which  might  in  some  measure  be  affected  by  the  amount  of  rev- 
enue thereafter  to  be  derived  from  the  sales  of  public  lands. 

Mr.  Clay,  on  the  16th  of  April,  made  a  report  sustaining  the  former 


560  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

policy  of  the  government,  and  against  the  proposed  reduction  of  the  price 
of  the  lands,  and  their  cession  to  the  states.  He  thought,  although  the 
revenue  was  not  needed  by  the  government  at  present,  it  would  be  wise 
to  provide  against  seasons  of  adversity.  As  the  revenue  from  duties  on 
imports  was  sufficient  for  ordinary  purposes,  he  proposed  a  distribution 
of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  among  the  states,  for  a 
limited  time,  subject  to  be  resumed  by  the  government  in  the  contin- 
gency of  war.  To  the  five  per  cent,  reserved  from  these  proceeds,  ten 
per  cent,  was  to  be  added,  for  making  internal  improvements  in  the  new 
states ;  which  was  intended  to  allay  the  complaints  of  the  people  of  these 
states,  that  the  public  lands  were  exempt  from  taxation  until  the  expira- 
tion of  five  years  from  the  time  of  sale.  The  residue  of  the  fund  derived 
from  land  sales  was  to  be  divided  among  all  the  states  in  proportion  to 
their  federal  population,  to  be  applied  to  purposes  of  education,  internal 
improvements,  or  colonization,  as  each  state  should  judge  most  condu- 
cive to  its  interests.  The  time  limited  for  the  distribution  of  the  land 
proceeds  was  by  the  bill  fixed  at  five  years. 

The  report  of  Mr.  Clay  was  followed,  on  the  18th  of  May,  by  a  counter 
report  from  the  committee  on  public  lands,  to  whom  the  bill  reported 
by  the  committee  on  manufactures  had  been  referred.  This  report  was 
made  by  Mr.  King,  of  Alabama,  and  differed  fundamentally  from  that 
of  Mr.  Clay.  A  reduction  of  the  price  was  recommended,  because,  the 
public  debt  being  nearly  paid,  the  lands  were  released  from  the  pledge 
they  were  under  for  that  object;  because  a  large  proportion  of  them  were 
refuse  lands,  having  been  long  in  market ;  because  the  extinction  of  the 
government  title  to  them  was  essential  to  the  independence  and  prosper- 
ity of  the  states  in  which  they  were  situated,  and  for  other  reasons. 

As  the  committee  considered  the  public  lands  a  subject  of  revenue, 
and  as  the  question  of  reducing  the  revenue  from  this  source  had  been 
referred  to  the  committee  on  manufactures,  who  had  reported  "  a  bill 
farther  to  amend  the  acts  imposing  duties  on  imports ;"  they  recom- 
mended that  an  amendment  be  offered  to  that  bill,  to  reduce  the  price 
of  fresh  lands  to  one  dollar  per  acre,  and  the  price  of  lands  having  been 
in  market  five  years,  to  fifty  cents  per  acre;  and  secondly,  that  the  bill 
relating  to  the  public  lands  reported  by  the  committee  on  manufactures, 
and  referred  to  this  committee,  be  amended  by  striking  out  the  whole, 
except  so  much  as  proposes  to  allow  ten  per  cent,  to  the  new  states,  and 
to  increase  the  same  to  fifteen  per  ct.  making  the  whole  allowance  twenty 
per  cent.  The  amendment  proposed  by  the  committee  on  public  lands, 
after  considerable  debate,  was  negatived  by  a  large  majority ;  and  the 
bill  reported  by  Mr.  Clay  was  passed,  26  to  18. 

The  bill  was  sent  to  the  house  for  concurrence,  July  3,  when  its  con- 


THE     "  HARBOR      BILL."  561 

sideration  was  postponed  to  the  first  Monday  of  December  next ;  which 
was  in  effect  a  rejection  of  the  bill. 

Internal  improvement,  another  subject  of  almost  incessant  agitation, 
was  again  discussed  at  this  session.  A  bill  originated  in  the  house, 
"  making  appropriations  for  certain  internal  improvements  for  the  year 
1832,"  which  passed  both  houses,  against  a  strenuous  opposition  from 
the  administration  members  from  the  southern  and  eastern  states  and 
the  state  of  New  York ;  and  which  received  the  approval  of  the  presi- 
dent, notwithstanding  his  previously  expressed  objections  to  a  system 
of  internal  improvement.  The  bill  contained  about  fifty  objects  of 
appropriation,  some  of  which  were  considered  of  less  importance  than 
those  which  had  been  negatived  by  the  president  at  a  previous  session. 
The  sums  appropriated  by  this  bill,  exceeded,  in  the  aggregate, 
Sl,200,000. 

Another  bill,  making  appropriations  for  the  improvement  of  harbors 
and  rivers,  also  originated  in  the  house,  passed  that  body  by  a  vote  of 
95  to  68.  A  motion  by  Mr.  Polk  to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause  had 
been  previously  negatived,  101  to  72.  In  the  senate  the  bill  was  ordered 
to  be  engrossed  by  a  vote  of  25  to  16  ;  and  was  passed  the  next  day, 
July  5,  by  nearly  the  same  vote. 

The  contradictory  action  of  the  president  upon  former  bills  for  inter- 
nal improvement  and  that  which  he  had  just  approved,  rendered  the  fate 
of  the  "  harbor  bill,"  as  it  was  termed,  somewhat  doubtful.  Its  passage 
by  the  senate  having  been  indicated  by  the  vote  upon  certain  amendments, 
Mr.  Miller,  of  South  Carolina,  said,  he  had  been  informed,  that  the 
president  had  approved  a  bill  for  the  benefit  of  internal  improvements, 
containing  appropriations  for  the  most  limited  and  local  purposes.  He 
hoped  he  should  not  again  be  referred  to  the  vetoes  of  tlie  Maysville  and 
Rockville  roads,  as  security  against  this  system.  Both  houses  and  the 
president  concurred  in  this  power.  Mr.  Clay  "  expressed  his  astonish- 
ment that  they  who  held  the  Maysville  and  Rockville  roads  and  other 
objects  to  be  unconstitutional,  had,  it  was  announced  to-day,  supported 
the  harbor  bill,  which  contained  objects  standing  precisely  on  the  same 
footing.  It  appeared  that,  under  the  present  administration,  the  consti- 
tutionality or  unconstitutionality  of  a  measure  depended  only  upon  cir- 
cumstances of  an  accidental  character." 

This  bill,  though  similar  in  principle  to  the  other,  did  not  receive  the 
signature  of  the  president.  It  was  received  by  him  the  13  th  of  July, 
three  days  before  the  adjournment  of  congress ;  and  instead  of  returning 
it  with  his  objections,  he  retained  it  until  congress  had  adjourned,  and 
thus  prevented  further  action  upon  it. 

A  bill  was  also  passed  at  this  session,  making  appropriations  for  the 

36 


562  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

final  settlement  of  the  claims  of  the  several  states  for  interest  on  moneys 
advanced  to  the  United  States  during  the  last  war.  This  bill  also,  passed 
the  day  after  the  passage  of  the  other,  was  virtually  negatived  by  its 
retention  until  after  the  adjournment.  The  passage  of  three  bills,  there- 
fore, was  arrested  by  the  president  at  this  session. 

At  the  session  of  1831-32,  a  new  tariff  act  was  passed.  A  report  was 
made  to  the  house,  on  the  8th  of  February,  1832,  by  Mr.  M'Duffie, 
chairman  of  the  committee  of  ways  and  means,  in  conformity  with  the 
views  of  the  opponents  of  protection.  It  adopted  a  general  system  of 
ad  valorem  duties,  and  proposed  a  reduction  of  duties  to  a  standard 
deemed  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  revenue,  after  the  payment  of  the 
public  debt.  It  proposed  a  gradual  reduction,  which  should  leave  a  uni- 
form duty  of  only  12  1-2  per  cent,  on  all  goods  imported  into  the  United 
States  after  the  30th  of  June,  1834.  A  counter  report  was  made  by 
Messrs.  IngersoU,  of  Conn.,  and  Grilmore,  of  Penn.  Mr.  Yerplanck,  of 
New  York,  of  the  same  committee,  dissented  from  both. 

Another  report  was  made  to  the  house,  on  the  27th  of  April,  by  Mr. 
M'Lane,  secretary  of  the  treasury,  in  compliance  with  a  resolution  of  the 
house.  The  bill  accompanying  this  report  proposed  to  reduce  the  duty 
on  coarse  wool  to  the  mere  nominal  duty  of  5  per  cent.,  and  on  woolen 
goods  to  20  per  cent. ;  to  abolish  entirely  the  minimum  system  as  to 
woolens^  except  the  cheaper  qualities ;  and  to  reduce  the  duties  generally 
to  an  aggregate  sum  equal  to  the  necessary  expenditures  of  the  govern- 
ment. Neither  of  these  two  bills  seems  to  have  received  any  action  in 
the  house,  except  a  very  long  speech  of  Mr.  M'Duffie  in  support  of  the 
bill  reported  by  himself. 

At  a  late  period  of  the  session,  (May  24,)  John  Quincy  Adams,  from 
the  committee  on  manufactures,  made  a  long  report,  with  a  bill  repeal- 
ing the  act  of  1828,  and  essentially  reducing  the  duties  on  some  impor- 
tant articles,  as  iron,  coarse  woolens,  &c.  As  a  whole,  however,  it  seems 
to  have  been  more  satisfactory  to  the  friends  of  protection,  than  the  act 
of  1828.  In  South  Carolina,  it  was  considered  by  the  "union"  party 
as  a  concession,  while  the  "  state  rights"  party  regarded  it  as  no  less 
objectionable  than  former  acts. 

The  bill  of  Mr.  M'Lane  was  intended  as  a  compromise ;  and  was  satis- 
factory to  neither  of  the  two  great  interests  chiefly  to  be  affected  by  a 
reduction  of  the  revenue.  It  proposed  to  reduce  the  revenue  from  duties 
on  imports  to  twelve  millions ;  a  reduction  of  about  ten  millions.  Mr. 
Adams'  report  was  exclusively  his  own,  no  other  member  of  the  commit- 
tee-agreeing with  him  in  every  particular.  The  bill  of  the  secretary 
proposed  a  reduction  equal  to  the  amount  now  pledged  for  the  payment 
of  the  national  debt,  which  was  nearly  paid.     Mr.  Adams  and  a  majority 


APPORTIONMENT    UNDER,    THE   FIFTH    CENSL'S.  563 

of  the  committee  thought  a  reduction  to  the  full  amount  of  the  annual 
appropriation  which  was  to  cea^e — ten  millions — too  great.  Others  of 
the  committee  considered  the  reduction  insufficient.  Such  modifications 
had  therefore  been  made  in  the  bill  of  the  secretary  as  to  command  for 
it  the  support  of  a  majority  of  the  committee,  although  it  was  not,  in  all 
its  details,  satisfactory  to  any  one  of  its  members. 

The  discussion  of  the  bill  was  a  brief  one ;  and,  with  a  few  amend- 
ments, not  materially  altering  its  character,  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  132 
to  65.  In  the  senate,  it  received  several  amendments,  some  of  which 
were  agreed  to  by  the  house.  A  conference  was  had ;  and  the  commit- 
tee on  the  part  of  the  senate,  having  recommended  that  they  recede  from 
the  amendments  disagreed  to  by  the  house,  the  same  was  done.  The 
bill,  as  amended  in  the  senate,  passed  that  body  by  a  vote  of  32  to  16. 
The  votes  on  receding  from  the  different  amendments  disagreed  to  by  the 
house,  were  various.  The  votes  against  it  in  both  houses,  were  chiefly 
from  members  who  objected  to  it  on  the  ground  that  it  did  not  surrender 
the  principle  of  protection. 

A  new  apportionment  of  members  of  the  house  of  representatives 
under  the  fifth  census  was  made  at  this  session.  A  bill  was  reported  in 
the  house  of  representatives  by  Mr.  Polk,  proposing  one  representative 
for  every  48,000  inhabitants  entitled  to  representation,  and  declaring  the 
number  of  representatives  in  each  state  under  this  rule.  The  ratio 
finally  adopted,  was  47,700 ;  and  to  avoid  the  constitutional  objection 
made  by  president  Washington  to  the  apportionment  bill  under  the 
first  census,  no  member  was  given  to  any  state  on  a  residuary  fraction  of 
population.  The  bill  passed  the  house  by  a  vote  of  130  to  58,  and  was 
sent  to  the  senate. 

In  the  senate,  the  bill  was  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  seven 
members,  Mr.  Webster  chairman,  who  proposed  to  amend  the  bill  by 
striking  out  all  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  inserting  a  substitute, 
making  the  ratio  47,000,  and  giving  to  each  state  a  representative  for 
that  number  of  inhabitants.  This  would  give  to  each .  state  the  same 
number  of  representatives  (240)  as  the  original  bill.  And  to  states  hav- 
ing fractions  of  25,000,  an  additional  representative  was  to  be  given, 
increasing  the  number  to  255.  Mr.  W.  undertook  to  show  that  his 
amendment  was  not  liable  to  the  objection  of  Gen.  Washington,  which 
was,  that  no  one  number,  or  division,  would  yield  the  number  of  mem- 
bers expressed  in  the  bill,  and  that  it  allotted  to  eight  of  the  states 
more  than  one  representative  for  every  30,000,  contrary  to  an  express 
provision  of  the  constitution. 

Mr.  Clayton  also  contended,  that  the  bill  of  1792,  had  been  rejected 
solely  because  it  gave  more  than  one  representative  for  each  30,000  to 


564  .  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

several  of  tlie  states ;  for,  in  the  bill  afterwards  signed  by  Wasbington 
fractions  were  in  fact  represented. 

Opposite  ground  was  taken  by  Messrs.  Marcy,  Frelinghuysen,  and 
others,  who  maintained,  that  Mr.  Webster's  bill  was  liable  to  the  same 
objection  as  that  rejected  in  1792;  and  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Madison  was 
cited  by  Mr.  Marcy,  in  support  of  his  argument.  Mr.  Frelinghuysen 
also  brought  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  test  of  Washington's  objec- 
tions; the  first  and  principal  one  of  which  was,  "  that  there  was  no  one 
proportion  or  division  which,  applied  to  the  respective  numbers  of  the 
states,  would  yield  the  number  and  allotment  of  representatives  proposed 
by  the  bill ;  and  the  second,  not  the  only  substantial  difficulty  with  the 
president,  as  some  had  insisted,  but  an  inference  from  the  former — that 
"  the  bill  allotted  to  eight  of  the  states  more  than  one  for  every  30,000." 
After  the  bill  had  been  returned,  congress  passed  a  new  bill  with  a  ratio 
of  33,000,  and  applied  that  to  the  population  of  each  state. 

Several  other  senators  participated  in  the  discussion.  The  bill  as  it 
came  from  the  house,  was  finally  ordered  to  a  third  reading ;  ayes,  27  ; 
noes,  20. 

Another  presidential  election  was  approaching.  Gen.  Jackson  had 
been  designated  by  his  friends  in  all  parts  of  the  union,  at  an  early  period 
after  the  commencement  of  his  administration,  as  a  candidate  for  reelec- 
tion. Hence  a  national  convention  was  necessary  only  to  nominate  a 
candidate  for  vice-president.  The  convention  for  that  purpose  was  held 
at  Baltimore,  in  May,  1832;  and  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  nominated. 
Probably  his  rejection  by  the  senate,  as  minister  to  England,  contributed 
to  the  unanimity  with  which  the  nomination  was  made ;  the  friends  of 
the  president  deeming  his  election  necessary  as  a  means  of  avenging  the 
dishonor  cast  upon  himself  by  the  rejection  of  Mr.  Van  Buren. 

The  opposition  had  selected  Mr.  Clay  as  their  candidate.  He  had 
been  nominated  by  a  convention  of  national '  republicans  in  December, 
1831,  with  John  Sergeant,  of  Pennsylvania,  for  vice-president.  The 
anti-masons,  whose  rise  and  progress  as  a  political  party  has  been 
described,  supported  William  Wirt  for  president,  and  Amos  Ellmaker, 
of  Pennsylvania,  for  vice-president ;  who  had  been  nominated  by  a 
national  convention,  also  held  in  Baltimore,  in  September,  1831.  The 
great  body  of  the  anti-masons  agreed,  in  their  views  of  national  policy, 
with  the  "  national  republicans,"  the  appellation  which  had  been  assumed 
by  the  opponents  of  the  administration.  Mr.  Clay,  however,  being  a 
mason,  the  anti-masons  were  unwilling  to  give  him  their  support. 

The  nomination  of  Mr.  Wirt  had  not  been  anticipated.  It  had  been 
the  purpose  of  the  anti-masons  to  nominate  John  M'Lean,  of  Ohio,  in 
the  hope  of  securing  the  cooperation  of  the  national  republicans  in  his 


PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION.  M565 

support.  Aware  that  his  name  would  be  brought  before  the  convention, 
he  addressed  to  one  of  its  members  a  letter,  requesting  that,  as  Gen. 
Jackson,  Mr.  Clay,  and  Mr.  Calhoun,  had  all  been  nominated  by  their 
friends  in  public  meetings  and  otherwise,  and  as  he  thought  it  inex- 
pedient to  distract  still  more  the  public  mind,  his  name  might  be  with- 
drawn. And  as  leading  masons  among  the  national  republicans  had 
expressed  a  determination  not  to  form  a  union  with  the  anti-masons,  even 
though  Judge  M'Lean  were  ijominated,  the  selection  of  another  person 
became  necessary. 

The  states  represented  in  the  anti-masonic  national  convention,  were 
Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Con- 
necticut, New  York,  New  Jersey,  Penns3dvania,  Delaware,  Maryland, 
Ohio,  and  Indiana.  John  C.  Spencer,  of  New  York,  was  chosen  presi- 
dent of  the  convention.  The  convention  was  in  session  three  days  ;  hav- 
ing received,  before  its  adjournment,  letters  of  acceptance  from  both  the 
candidates. 

The  letter  of  Mr.  Wirt  was  one  of  great  length,  stating  his  former  con- 
nection with  the  institution  of  masonry,  and  his  limited  knowledge  of  its 
character,  and  of  the  obligations  said  to  be  assumed  by  those  entering 
the  higher  degrees.  But  it  had  become  manifest,  from  the  trials  in  the 
case  of  Morgan,  that  these  oaths  were  not  considered  by  those  who  im- 
posed and  took  them,  as  mere  idle  words ;  but  that  they  were  viewed  as 
obligations  to  be  practically  enforced.  This  could  not,  however,  be 
masonry  as  understood  by  Washington.  The  suspicion  would  be  parri- 
cide. Nor  could  he  believe,  that,  where  he  was  best  acquainted,  intelli- 
gent and  honorable  men,  if  they  had  been  drawn  in  to  take  these  shock- 
ing and  impious  oaths,  could  consider  them  as  paramount  to  their  duties 
to  Grod  and  their  country.  He  was  unwilling  to  pledge  himself  to  unite 
in  a  war  of  indiscriminate  proscription  against  all  who  had  ever  borne  the 
name  of  mason. 

The  numerous  cases  of  defection  from  the  ranks  of  the  administration 
party,  had  inspired  some  of  its  opponents  with  the  hope  of  success,  or  at 
least  of  a  bare  election  of  Gen.  Jackson.  The  election,  however,  showed 
a  different  result.  Gen.  Jackson  received  of  the  electoral  votes,  219; 
Mr.  Clay,  49  ;  and  Mr.  Wirt,  7.  The  30  Pennsylvania  electors  voted 
for  William  Wilkins,  of  that  state,  instead  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  for  vice- 
president  ;  and  the  1 1  votes  of  South  Carolina,  were  given  for  John 
Floyd,  of  Virginia,  and  Henry  Lee,  of  Massachusetts. 

The  electoral  vote  for  president,  however,  was  not  a  true  indication  of 
the  popular  vote,  which  was  less,  in  the  aggregate,  than  at  his  first  elec- 
tion ;  some  of  the  states  having  been  carried  by  small  majorities.  It 
was  hence  inferred  that  a  perfect  cordial  union  of  his  opponents  might 
have  defeated  his  election. 


566  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


CHAPTER  XLYI. 

UNITED  STATES  BANK BILL  VETOED AFFAIRS  OF  THE  BANK  INVESTIGATED, 

A  MEMORIAL,  in  behalf  of  the  stockholders,  was  presented,  asking 
for  a  renewal  of  the  charter  of  the  bank.  Among  the  reasons  stated 
for  making  the  application  at  so  early  a  date,  the  memorial  says: 
"  Unless  the  question  is  decided  by  the  present  congress,  no  definitive 
action  can  be  expected  until  within  two  years  of  the  expiration  of  the 
charter — a  period  before  which,  in  the  opinion  of  your  memorialists,  it 
is  highly  expedient,  not  merely  in  reference  to  the  institution  itself, 
but  to  the  interests  of  the  nation,  that  the  determination  of  congress 
should  be  known.  Independently  of  the  influence  which  the  bank  was 
designed  to  possess,  and  which  it  necessarily  exercises  over  the  state  of 
the  currency,  by  which  all  the  pecuniary  transactions  of  the  community 
are  regulated,  its  own  immediate  operations  are  connected  intimately  with 
the  local  business  of  almost  every  section  of  the  United  States,  with  the 
commercial  interchanges  between  the  several  states,  and  the  intercourse 
of  them  all  with  foreign  nations." 

In  the  senate,  the  memorial  was  referred  to  "a  select  committee,  con- 
sisting of  Messrs.  Dallas,  Webster,  Ewing,  Hayne,  and  Johnston,  of 
Louisiana.  In  the  house,  it  was  referred  to  the  committee  of  ways  and 
means,  of  which  Mr.  M'Duffie  was  chairman.  A  bill  was  reported  in 
each  house ;  but  that  of  Mr.  Dallas  in  the  senate  was  the  one  adopted 
by  both  houses.  It  proposed  a  renewal  for  only  fifteen  years ;  required 
the  same  bonus,  ($1,500,000,)  to  be  paid  to  the  government  as  was 
required  by  the  charter  of  1816.  The  new  bill  contained  several  modi- 
fications of  the  existing  charter,  some  of  which  Mr.  Dallas  deemed  either 
unnecessary  or  injurious ;  one  of  which  compelled  the  bank,  or  any  of 
its  branches,  to  receive  in  payment  of  balances  due  it  by  state  banks, 
the  notes  issued  by,  and  payable  at  any  other  branch.  The  constitu- 
tional power  to  establish  a  bank,  Mr.  Dallas  said,  had  been  asserted  and 
sustained,  for  so  many  years,  by  every  department  of  the  government,  and 
had  been  so  long  acquiesced  in  by  the  people,  that  he  considered  that 
matter  as  definitively  settled. 

The  report  of  Mr.  M'Duffie,  of  the  house,  consisted,  chiefly,  of  his 
report  of  1830;  and  the  bill  reported  by  him  provided  for  continuing 
the  bank  for  twenty  years  under  its  present  charter,  with  some  modifi- 
cations ;  one  of  which  was,  that  the  president  should  appoint  one  of  the 


UNITED  STATES  BANK.  567 

directors  of  each  branch  ;  another,  that,  for  the  exclusive  privileges  and 
benefits  conferred  by  the  act,  a  certain  rate  of  interest  (not  mentioned  in 
the  bill)  should  be  paid  upon  the  government  deposits,  instead  of  a  spe- 
cific sum,  as  a  bonus.  Congress  also  reserved  the  right  of  revoking  the 
charter  after  ten  years,  by  giving  three  years'  notice.  And  the  issue  of 
notes  at  branches  where  they  were  not  payable,  was  prohibited. 

The  vote  on  the  final  passage  of  the  bill,  (that  of  the  senate,)  was,  in 
the  senate,  28  to  20  ;  in  the  house,  107  to  85.  The  bill  was  sent  to  the 
president  for  his  approval ;  and  returned  with  his  objections  to  the 
senate,  where,  on  the  question  of  its  passage,  notwithstanding  the  veto, 
the  vote  was  22  to  19;  lacking  the  constitutional  majority  necessary  to 
its  passage. 

This  exercise  of  the  veto  drew  upon  the  president  the  severe  displea- 
sure of  the  friends  of  the  bank,  and  the  highest  commendations  of  its 
opponents.  By  the  former,  his  reasons  were  deemed  frivolous  and 
unsatisfactory  ;  by  the  latter,  substantial  and  unanswerable.  The  pre- 
sident regarded  it  as  one  objection  to  the  renewal  of  the  bank,  that  the 
stockholders  would  immediately  be  largely  benefited  by  an  increase  of 
the  price  of  the  stock ;  and  for  this  gratuity  to  foreigners  and  some  of 
our  opulent  citizens,  the  act  secured  no  equivalent.  The  present  corpo- 
ration had  long  enjoyed  the  monopoly;  and  if  we  must  have  such  a  cor- 
poration, why  should  not  the  government  sell  out  the  whole  stock,  and 
thus  secure  to  the  people  the  full  market  value  of  the  privileges  granted, 
by  putting  the  premium  upon  the  sales  into  the  treasury  ? 

It  had  been  urged  in  favor  of  a  recharter,  that  calling  in  its  loans 
would  produce  embarrassment  and  distress.  The  time  allowed  to  close 
its  concerns  was  ample  ;  and  if  it  had  been  well  managed,  its  pressure 
would  be  light,  and  heavy  only  in  case  its  management  had  been  bad. 

Another  objection  was,  that  a  large  portion  of  the  stock  was  held  by 
foreigners.  In  case  of  war,  should  the  stock  principally  have  passed 
into  the  hands  of  foreigners,  all  its  operations  within  would  be  in  aid  of 
the  hostile  fleets  and  armies  without. 

The  views  of  the  president  in  relation  to  the  constitutionality  of 
the  bank  deserve  a  careful  consideration.  His  conclusions  on  this  sub- 
ject differ  from  those  of  Mr.  Madison,  who,  in  1816,  waived  his  consti- 
tutional scruples,  and  subsequently  maintained,  that  precedent,  the  deci- 
sion of  the  supreme  court,  and  the  long  acquiescence  of  the  people, 
had  settled  the  constitutionality  of  the  bank.  Congress,  the  president 
said,  had  as  often  decided  against,  as  in  favor  of  a  bank.  And  in  the 
states,  the  expressions  of  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  opinions 
against  the  bank  had  been,  probably,  to  those  in  its  favor,  as  four  to 
one.     Precedent  was  therefore  not  in  favor  of  the  act.     Mere  precedent 


568  THE    AxMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

was  dangerous  authority,  except  where  the  acquiescence  of  the  people 
and  the  states  could  be  considered  as  well  settled. 

The  opinion  of  the  supreme  court,  he  contended,  ought  not  to  control 
the  coordinate  authorities  of  the  government.  He  said  :  "  The  con- 
gress, the  executive,  and  the  court,  must  each  for  itself  be  guided  by  its 
own  opinion  of  the  constitution.  Each  public  officer  who  takes  an  oath 
to  support  the  constitutiot,  swears  that  he  will  support  it  as  he  under- 
stands it,  and  not  as  it  is  understood  by  others.  *  *  *  The  opinion 
of  the  judges  has  no  more  authority  over  congress  than  the  opinion  of 
congress  has  over  the  judges ;  and  on  that  point  the  president  is  inde- 
pendent of  both."     [Appendix,  Note  E.] 

The  question  of  constitutionality  was  farther  discussed;  and  other 
objections  were  presented  in  the  message ;  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 

The  veto  of  the  bank  bill  was  turned  to  the  account  of  the  president's 
popularity.  The  veto  message  was  extensively  circulated  and  read, 
and  greatly  increased  the  opposition  to  the  institution.  It  met  general 
favor  among  the  friends  of  the  administration,  except  in  the  state  of 
Pennsylvania,  where  a  strong  opposition  to  the  president  was  created. 
In  Philadelphia,  the  excitement  was  intense.  A  meeting  was  held  in 
that  city,  said  to  have  been  one  of  the  largest  ever  assembled  in  it,  com- 
posed in  great  part  of  the  former  friends  of  the  president ;  from  whom 
the  presiding  officer,  and  a  majority  of  the  subordinate  officers,  were 
selected,  in  order  to  render  the  meeting  the  more  imposing. 

The  president  and  his  message  were  treated  with  great  severity,  as 
appears  from  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  meeting,  which  was  truly  an 
"  indignation  meeting;"  its  members  declaring  that  they  had  read  the 
message  with  ^'astonishment,  indignation,  and  alarm."  It  was  pro- 
nounced a  "discreditable  document."  Its  "  language,  doctrines,  tem- 
per, and  purposes,"  gave  "  additional  evidence  that  the  opinions  and 
actions  of  the  president  were  controlled  by  the  influence  of  designing 
men,  seeking  their  own  continuance  in  power,  at  the  sacrifice  of  the 
country."  His  rejection  of  the  bank  bill,  his  assaults  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  protection  to  American  industry,  upon  the  supreme  court,  and 
upon  the  independence  of  congress,  had  "  severed  the  ties  by  which  the 
people  of  Pennsylvania  had  been  connected  with  him;"  and  they  de- 
clared, "  that  the  reelection  of  a  president  whose  official  path  had  been 
strewed  with  violated  pledges,"  and  who  had  "  wantonly  trampled  upon 
the  interests  of  his  fellow-citizens,  would  be  a  national  calamity."  He 
had  "shown  an  utter  contempt  of  the  unanimous  voice  of  Pennsylvania, 
expressed  through  her  legislature  and  delegation  in  congress  with  regard 
to  the  bank,  the  tariff,  and  the  judiciary;"  and  this  they  considered 
"  ungrateful,"  as  it  was  to  "  the  active  and  persevering  support  of  that 


AFFAIRS    OF    THE    BANK   INVESTIGATED.  569 

state,  that  he  was  mainly  indebted  for  his  elevation  to  the  presidency.'* 
Resolutions  were  also  passed,  tendering  thanks  to  their  senators,  Dallas 
and  Wilkins,  for  continuing  to  vote  for  the  bank  bill  after  it  had  been 
returned. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  A.  S.  Clayton,  of  Georgia,  February  23,  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  in  the  house  of  representatives,  on  the  1 4th  of 
March,  1832,  "  to  inspect  thj  books,  and  examine  into  the  proceedings 
of  the  bank  of  the  United  States."  The  debate  on  the  proposition  was 
one  of  the  most  animated  that  occurred  during  the  session.  Numerous 
acts  of  misconduct  were  alleged  against  the  bank  as  furnishing  ground 
for  the  inquiry.  The  charges  were  :  The  issue  of  $7,000,000  and  more 
of  branch  bank  orders  as  a  currency  ;  usury ;  dealing  in  domestic  bills 
of  exchange  and  disguised  loans  ;  non-user  of  charter  ;  building  houses 
to  rent ;  deficiency  of  coin  ;  foreigners  through  their  trustees  voting  for 
directors ;  with  sundry  minor  abuses. 

Mr.  Clayton,  who  preferred  these  charges,  was  replied  to  by  Mr. 
M'Dufiie,  who  denied  some  of  the  acts  charged,  and  vindicated  others, 
as  consistent  with  the  charter,  and  agreeable  to  the  ordinary  course  of 
business.  A  large  number  of  members  participated  in  the  debate,  in 
the  course  of  which  the  merits  and  demerits  of  the  institution  were 
closely  canvassed.  The  committee  appointed  under  the  resolution  con- 
sisted of  Messrs.  Clayton,  Adams,  M'Duffie,  Johnson,  of  Kentucky, 
Cambreleug,  Thomas,  of  Maryland,  and  Watmough.  Three  different 
reports  were  made  by  the  members  of  this  committee :  the  first,  from 
the  majority,  Messrs.  Clayton,  Johnson,  Cambreleng,  and  Thomas  ;  the 
second,  from  Messrs.  M'Duffie,  Adams,  and  "Watmough ;  and  the  third, 
from  Mr.  Adams  alone. 

The  inquiry  of  the  committee  was  directed  to  two  general  objects : 
1st.  Whether  the  provisions  of  the  charter  had  been  violated.  2d. 
Whether  there  had  been  any  circumstances  of  mismanagement  against 
which  future  legislation  might  guard,  or  which  should  destroy  its 
claims  to  farther  confidence. 

In  relation  to  the  first  general  object  of  inquiry,  the  committee  sub- 
mitted six  cases  which  had  been  made  the  subjects  of  imputation  against 
the  bank,  without  expressing  their  own  opinion  as  to  their  force. 

1st.  Usury.  Under  a  former  president  of  the  bank,  (Mr.  Cheves,) 
in  1822,  the  branch  at  Lexington,  having  on  hand  a  large  amount  of 
depreciated  Kentucky  bank  notes,  had  loaned  some  of  them  to  an 
individual,  who  said  they  would  answer  his  purpose  as  well  as  any 
other  bills,  as  they  would  be  used  in  paying  a  debt.  The  minority  did 
not  consider  this  a  case  of  usury.  The  bank  of  Kentucky  had  subse- 
quently redeemed  its  notes.     The  loan  was  made  with  reluctance,  after 


570  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

repeated  applications  ;  yet,  after  many  years,  Mr.  Biddk  being  presi- 
dent, the  bank  had  refunded  the  difference  between  the  nominal  and 
real  value.  The  bank  had  also,  in  addition  to  the  rate  of  interest, 
charged  the  rate  of  exchange.  The  president  of  the  bank  said  that  was 
the  usual  custom,  and  was  not  usury. 

2d.  Issuing  branch  drafts.  It  had  been  found  impracticable  for  the 
president  and  cashier  to  sign  a  sufficient  number  of  small  notes  to  sup- 
ply the  required  circulation  from  the  bank  and  all  its  branches.  The 
practice  had  therefore  been  adopted  of  the  branches  drawing  checks  on 
•the'cashier  of  the  bank  for  smaller  sums  than  they  had  been  in  the  habit 
of  furnishing.  The  opinions  of  Mr.  Binney,  Mr.  Webster,  and  Mr. 
Wirt,  the  attorney-general,  had  been  taken  on  the  issuing  of  the  branch 
drafts. 

3d.  Selling  coin,  and  especially  American  coin.  The  bank  w^as  autho- 
rized to  deal  in  bullion.  Foreign  coins  were  considered  bullion.  Hav- 
ing bought  them  at  a  premium,  it  had  sold  them  at  a  premium.  The 
bank  had  in  this  also  acted  under  legal  advice.  Dealing  in  coin,  the 
minority  said,  was  the  very  end  for  which  it  had  been  created. 

4th.  Sale  of  stock  obtained  from  government  under  special  acts  of 
congress ;  whereas  the  bank  was  forbidden  by  its  charter  to  deal  in 
stocks.  The  minority  considered  the  right  of  the  bank  to  sell  the 
stock  for  which  it  had  been  expressly  authorized  to  subscribe,  to  be  of 
the  very  essence  of  the  right  of  property. 

5tli.  Donations  for  roads,  canals,  &c.  The  committee  said  there 
might  be  a  question  whether  the  public  funds  of  the  bank  could  be  thus 
appropriated.  The  minority  said  the  directors  had,  in  two  instances, 
subscribed  small  sums  to  certain  internal  improvements  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  real  estate  of  the  bank,  with  a  view  to  the  improvement  of  its 
value.     For  this  they  were  responsible  to  the  stockholders  alone. 

6th.  Building  houses  to  rent  or  sell.  This  was  defended  by  the 
minority.  The  bank  was  expressly  authorized  to  purchase  real  estate* 
mortgaged  to  secure  debts  previously  contracted,  and  also  such  as  had 
been  sold  on  executions  in  its  own  favor  ;  and  the  directors  had  been 
compelled  to  take  real  estate  in  order  to  avoid  loss.  On  a  part  of  it 
they  had  erected  improvements  to  prepare  it  for  sale,  and  thus  had 
saved  the  stockholders  from  much  loss. 

Of  the  allegations  under  the  second  general  head,  we  can  make  room 
for  but  one,  which  was  probably  the  subject  of  more  general  remark,  as 
evidence  of  corrupt  management,  than  any  other.  It  was  the  loan  of 
money  to  editors,  and  especially  to  Webb  and  Noah,  proprietors  and 
editors  of  the  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer;  to  whom  $15,000  had 
been  loaned  at  one  time,  and  $20,000  at  another.     What  had  excited 


AFFAIRS    OF    THE    BANK    INVESTIGATED.  57x 

euspicion  in  this  case  was,  that  this  newspaper  had  been  opposed  to  the 
bank,  but  had  come  out  in  its  favor.  Of  the  whole  sum  loaned, 
($35,000,)  about  one-half  had  been  paid— the  whole  of  the  $15,000 
note,  and  $2,000  of  the  other.  Mr.  Webb  had  made  to  the  directors  a 
statement,  sworn  to  by  their  book-keepers,  of  the  value  and  income  of 
their  establishment,  and  showing  a  nett  annual  income  of  more  than 
$25,000.  With  these  exhibits,  Mr.  Webb  presented  a  letter  of  Walter 
Bowne,  mayor  of  New  York,  and  formerly  a  director  of  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States,  inclosing  the  application  for  the  loan,  and  stating 
that  "  he  did  so  with  pleasure,  and  saw  no  reason  against  this  being 
treated  as  a  fair  business  transaction."  That  these  transactions  were  so 
considered,  the  president  and  several  of  the  directors  testified  on  oath. 

To  this  testimony  was  added  the  fact,  that  Webb  and  Co.  had  in 
their  paper  declared  themselves  in  favor  of  renewing  the  charter  of  the 
bank,  four  months  before  their  application  for  the  first  loan  ($20,000) 
was  made.  It  was  shown,  too,  that  the  other  had  not  been  received  by 
them  from  the  bank ;  but  had  been  borrowed  of  the  bank  by  Silas  E. 
Burrows,  a  man  of  large  fortune,  upon  his  own  responsibility,  without 
the  knowledge  of  Webb  or  Noah ;  they  both  supposing,  until  near  the 
time  of  the  visit  of  the  committee  to  the  bank,  that  Mr.  B.  had  obtained 
the  money  from  his  father.  He  had  applied  for  the  money,  as  Mr. 
Biddle  testified,  to  befriend  Mr.  Noah,  and  assist  him  in  purchasing  a 
share  of  the  newspaper  of  Mr.  Webb.  Mr.  Biddle,  from  his  own 
funds,  gave  Mr.  Burrows  the  money,  and  took  the  notes  into  his  own 
possession,  and  retained  them  for  a  long  time,  having  no  occasion  to  use 
the  funds.  They  were  subsequently  entered  on  the  books  of  the  bank. 
On  the  2d  of  March,  1831,  Mr.  Burrows  paid  the  notes.  The  minority, 
(with  the  concurrence  of  Mr.  Johnson,  making  a  majority,)  saw  in  these 
transactions  nothing  to  induce  them  to  doubt  the  honor  or  integrity  of 
the  directors,  most  of  whom  were  men  of  independent  fortunes,  and 
having  no  connection  with  politics. 

The  other  allegations  of  the  majority  were  severally  met  and  disposed 
of  by  the  minority,  to  the  satisfaction,  it  is  presumed,  of  the  friends  of 
the  bank,  if  not  to  others. 

As  has  been  observed,  Mr.  Adams  alone  Hubmitted  a  third  report,  of 
very  great  length,  generally  in  favor  of  the  bank.  Of  this  report  we 
can  not  attempt  even  an  analysis.  A  single  subject  will  receive  our 
attention ;  being  deemed  necessary  from  its  supposed  bearing  upon  the 
character  of  the  bank  controversy,  as  well  as  from  the  consideration 
that  certain  facts  disclosed  by  the  investigation  were  not  noticed  or  com- 
mented upon  by  the  committee.  They  are  thus  alluded  to  by  Mr. 
Adams :  "  They  are  not  noticed  in  the  report  of  the  chairman,  but,  in 


572  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  opinion  of  the  subscriber,  are  more  deserving  of  the  attention  of 
congress  and  of  the  nation,  than  any  other  papers  commented  upon  in 
the  report."  These  papers  tended  to  confirm  the  suspicions  extensively 
entertained,  that  the  opposition  to  the  bank  arose  from  an  unsuccessful 
attempt,  on  the  part  of  the  executivQ  department  of  the  government,  to 
acquire  a  political  and  pecuniary  control  over  the  proceedings  of  the 
bank  and  its  branches. 

On  the  11th  of  July,  1829,  Mr.  Ingham,  secretary  of  the  treasury, 
transmitted  to  Mr.  Biddle  a  copy  of  a  confidential  letter  from  senator 
Woodbury,  of  N.  H.,  containing  a  complaint  against  the  president  of 
the  branch  bank  of  the  United  States  at  Portsmouth,  and  stating  that 
complaints  of  a  similar  nature  had  been  suggested  from  other  places, 
particularly  from  Kentucky  and  Louisiana.  The  charge  was,  that  the 
influence  of  the  bank  was  used  "with  a  view  to  political  efi"ect."  The 
letter  of  Mr.  Woodbury  represented  the  recent  change  in  the  presidency 
of  the  bank  as  generally  dissatisfactory.  He  said  :  "  The  new  president, 
Jeremiah  Mason,  is  a  particular  friend  of  Mr.  Webster,  and  his  political 
character  is  well  known  to  you."  He  said  the  people  desired  the  removal 
of  the  present  president ;  and  many  of  them  had  requested  him  to  ask 
his  (Mr.  Ingham's)  influence  at  the  mother  bank  in  producing  a  change. 

Mr.  Biddle,  in  answer,  says,  that  the  inference  of  Mr.  Woodbury's 
letter  is,  that  the  former  president  had  been  removed  to  make  way  for 
Mr.  Mason  with  an  increased  salary,  and  that  the  bank  was  using  its 
influence  against  the  present  administration.  He  thought  this  view  of 
the  subject  erroneous.  1st.  The  presidency  had  not  been  changed  by 
the  bank ;  the  former  president  having  declined  serving,  in  consequence 
of  advanced  age  and  declining  health.  The  bank  had  not  desired  a 
change.  2d.  The  salary  had  not  been  increased.  Mr.  Mason  was  only 
receiving  an  annual  allowance  as  counsel  for  the  bank,  in  addition  to  his 
salary.  3d.  Mr.  Webster  had  had  no  agency  in  obtaining  for  him  the 
appointment.  4th.  He  (Mr.  Biddle)  was  surprised  that  Mr.  Woodbury 
should  consider  the  complaints  about  Mr.  Mason  as  having  any  connec- 
tion with  politics ;  and  for  this  reason  :  Mr.  Woodbury  had  written  to 
him  (Mr.  B.)  a  letter  on  the  same  day  on  which  he  had  written  to  him, 
(Mr.  I.,)  asking  the  removal  of  Mr.  Mason.  He  (Mr.  B.)  had  answered 
Mr.  Woodbury's  letter,  and  requested  him  to  aid  his  inquiries,  by  stat- 
ing the  nature  of  the  complaints  against  Mr.  Mason. 

In  his  reply  to  this  request,  Mr.  Woodbury  said  :  "  It  is  due  in  per- 
fect frankness  to  state,  that  the  president  of  the  present  board,  as  a 
politician,  is  not  very  acceptable  to  the  majority  of  this  town  and  state. 
But  it  is  at  the  same  time  notorious,  that  the  charges  against  him,  in 
his   present   office,  originated  exclusively  with  his  political  friends." 


AFFAIRS    OF    THE    BANK   INVESTIGATED.  573 

This  statement,  that  the  complaints  were  made  by  Mr.  Mason's  political 
friends,  Mr.  Biddle  thought  irreconcilable  with  the  statement  of  the 
same  person  to  him,  (Mr.  Ingham,)  that  the  bank  was  managed  "with  a 
view  to  political  effect;"  and  he  expressed  the  opinion,  that  it  would 
appear,  "  that  Mr.  Mason  had  had  the  courage  to  do  his  duty,  whether 
he  offended  his  political  friends  or  not.  He  might  have  done  his  duty 
too  rigidly;  that  was  a  fit  subject  for  examination,  and  should  be  exam- 
ined." In  another  letter  inclosed  in  the  above,  Mr.  B.  says :  "  It  has 
been  the  settled  policy  of  the  institution,  pursued  with  the  most  fastidi- 
ous care,  to  devote  itself  exclusively  to  the  purposes  for  which  it  was 
instituted  ;  to  abstain  from  all  political  contests."  He  said  he  had  not, 
during  his  long  acquaintance  with  the  bank,  known  a  single  instance  of 
its  perverting  its  power  to  any  local  or  party  purposes.  He  thought  it 
as  necessary  to  a  successful  administration  of  the  government  as  to  that 
of  the  bank,  that  the  latter  should  be  entirely  independent  of  party 
influence. 

The  secretary,  in  his  answer,  (July  23,)  says,  "it  is  impossible  that 
the  character  of  all  the  acts  of  the  directors,  much  less  their  motives, 
could  be  known  to  the  board ;"  hence  Mr.  Biddle's  declaration  that  no 
loans  had  been  made  or  withheld  from  party  considerations  "  must  be 
received  rather  as  evidence  of  his  own  feelings,  than  as  conclusive  proof 
of  the  fact  so  confidently  vouched  for."  He  claimed  it  as  the  right  of 
the  department  "  to  which  was  assigned  the  direction  of  the  relations 
between  the  government  and  the  bank,  to  suggest  its  views  as  to  their 
proper  management."  And  he  intimated  his  objection  to  a  course  of 
action,  on  the  part  of  the  bank,  "that  either  resisted  inquiry,  or  what 
was  of  the  same  tendency,  entered  upon  it  with  a  full  persuasion  that  it 
was  not  called  for." 

The  directors,  however,  before  this  last  letter  was  received,  had  deter- 
mined on  a  rigorous  examination  of  the  complaints  against  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  branch  at  Portsmouth;  and  Mr.  Biddle  had  already  gone 
thither  for  that  purpose.  The  letter  was  therefore  answered  by  Gen. 
Cadwallader,  acting  president,  by  direction  of  the  board.  Among  other 
things  stated  in  the  letter,  he  reiterated  the  opinion  of  the  board,  that 
no  loans  had  been  made  or  withheld  from  party  considerations;  and  it 
needed  not  to  be  thought  surprising,  that,  "while  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  our  citizens,  in  the  various  pursuits  of  life,  refuse  to  yield 
their  honest  convictions  to  party  prejudices,  a  few  hundred  of  our  coun- 
trymen, carefully  selected  from  the  most  independent,  intelligent,  and 
upright,  should  be  found  sufficiently  honest  to  prefer  their  duty  to  their 
party."  But  if  the  offenses  alleged  should  be  found  to  exist  in  any 
quarter,  the  offenders  would  be  promptly  visited  "with  the  utmost 
severity  of  censure  and  punishment." 


574  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

A  short  time  previously  to  this,  Mr.  Isaac  Hill,  of  New  Hampshire, 
then  second  controller  of  the  treasury  at  Washington,  wrote  to  two  of 
his  friends  at  Philadelphia,  and  agreeably  to  the  suggestions  he  had 
made  to  them  when  he  saw  them  there,  sent  them  two  petitions  to  the 
president  and  directors  of  the  bank,  asking  for  a  change  in  the  board  of 
directors  at  Portsmouth  ;  one  of  which  was  signed  by  about  sixty  mem- 
bers of  the  New  Hampshire  legislature.  Mr.  Hill  remarked  in  this  let- 
ter, that  "  the  friends  of  Gen.  Jackson  in  New  Hampshire  have  had  but 
too  much  reason  to  complain  of  the  management  of  the  branch  at  Ports- 
mouth." Of  the  ten  persons  named  in  the  petition  for  directors,  four 
were  friends  of  the  administration. 

About  the  same  time,  an  effort  was  made,  the  object  of  which  will  be 
seen  from  the  following  extract  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Mason  to  Mr.  Bid- 
die,  dated  July  21,  1829  :  "  An  attempt  is  making  to  remove  the  pen- 
sion agency  from  this  office  to  Concord,  in  this  state.  During  the  ses- 
sion of  our  legislature,  in  June,  a  memorial  was  gotten  up  by  Mr.  Isaac 
Hill,  second  controller  of  the  treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  signed 
by  divers  of  his  warm  political  partisans,  and  others  particularly  inter- 
ested in  the  matter,  addressed  to  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  urging 
the  central  situation  of  Concord  as  a  reason  for  the  removal.  Mr.  Hill's 
object,  doubtless,  is  to  benefit  a  small  bank  at  Concord,  of  which,  till 
his  removal  to  Washington,  he  was  the  president." 

Then  follows  a  letter  from  the  secretary  of  war  to  Mr.  Mason,  direct- 
ing the  books,  papers,  and  funds  of  the  New  Hampshire  pension  agency 
to  be  transferred  to  Wm.  Pickering,  of  Concord.  Mr.  Mason  objected 
to  this  order,  as  being  contrary  to  law ;  and  it  was  eventually  withdrawn. 
It  may  be  known  to  every  reader,  that,  by  the  charter  of  the  bank,  it 
was  made  the  duty  of  the  bank  to  make  the  disbursements  of  the  public 
moneys  for  the  government;  hence  the  funds  for  paying  pension  claims, 
were  placed  for  this  purpose  in  the  branches  of  the  bank  in  the  several 
localities ;  and  Mr.  Mason  denied  the  legality  both  of  the  order  of  the 
secretary,  and  of  his  own  right  to  surrender  the  pension  funds,  papers 
and  books,  as  required.  This  opinion  of  Mr.  Mason  was  sustained,  in 
1832,  by  secretary  Cass,  Mr.  Eaton's  successor  in  the  department  of 
war.  On  account  of  the  greater  convenience  to  pensioners  beyond  the 
southern  counties  of  the  state  of  New  York  in  the  vicinity  of  New 
York  city,  the  Mechanics'  and  Farmers'  Bank  in  the  city  of  Albany, 
had  been  selected  as  the  medium  through  which  pensions  were  to  be  paid. 
Against  this  Mr.  Biddle  had  remonstrated  as  being  illegal.  But  the 
agency  was  continued  until  after  Mr.  Cass's  appointment ;  who  wrote  offi- 
cially to  Mr.  Biddle,  March  1,  1832:  "  I  am  satisfied,  from  a  careful 
examination  of  the  laws  of  congress,  that  this  department  is  not  war- 


AFFAIRS  OF  THE  BANK  INVESTIGATED.  575 

ranted  in  appointing  a  pension  agent  in  any  state  or  territory  where  the 
United  States  bank  has  established  one  of  its  branches." 

Mr.  Biddle,  after  his  return  from  New  Hampshire,  in  one  of  his  let- 
ters to  Mr.  Ingham,  notices  the  singular  fact,  that  "  on  the  eve  of  an 
election  for  an  officer  of  this  bank  in  New  Hampshire,  the  senator  from 
New  Hampshire,  the  second  controller  from  New  Hampshire,  the  legis- 
lature of  New  Hampshire,  the  merchants  of  all  parties  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, were  all  arrayed  to  complain  of  his  abuses,  and  to  show  how  loudly 
public  opinion  demanded  his  removal,  just  at  the  moment  when  the 
administration  had  declared  to  the  bank,  that  public  opinion  was  the 
only  safe  test  of  such  accusations.  *  *  *  After  a  calm  and  thorough 
investigation,  they  (the  board)  found  that  all  these  accusations  were 
entirely  groundless;  that  the  most  zealous  of  his  enemies  did  not  ven- 
ture to  assert  that  he  had  ever,  on  any  occasion,  been  influenced  by 
political  feelings,  and  that  this  public  opinion,  so  imposing  in  the  mist 
of  distance,  degenerated  into  the  personal  hostility  of  a  very  limited, 
and,  for  the  most  part,  very  prejudiced  circle.  Mr.  Mason  was  there- 
fore immediately  reelected." 

Mr.  Ingham,  in  reply,  disclaimed  any  knowledge  of  Mr.  Hill's  move- 
ment against  Mr.  Mason.  He  claimed  for  the  government  a  supervis- 
ing power  over  the  bank,  and  a  right  to  coerce  it  by  withdrawing  public 
deposits,  and  otherwise.  "  The  bank,"  he  said,  "  can  not,  if  it  would, 
avoid  the  action  of  the  government  in  all  its  legitimate  operations  and 
policy,  however  disposed  it  might  be  after  calculating  the  immensity  of 
its  coffers,  and  the  expansion  of  its  power,  to  assert  a  superiority  or  insen- 
sibility to  such  action.  The  pretension  could  only  excite  a  smile.  Com- 
pared to  the  government,  the  bank  is  essentially  insignificant."  He 
said,  however,  "  No  one  can  more  fervently  desire  than  I  do,  that  the 
bank  shall,  in  all  its  ramifications,  be  absolutely  independent  of  party." 

Another  letter  from  Mr.  Biddle  to  Mr.  Ingham,  closes  the  correspon- 
dence ;  but  any  extracts  from  it  are  considered  unnecessary.  This  cor- 
respondence terminated  in  October,  about  two  months  before  the  appear- 
ance of  president  Jackson's  first  annual  message,  disclosing  his  opposi- 
tion to  the  bank. 


576  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


CHAPTEK  XL VII. 

SOUTH     CAROLINA    NULLIFICATION. JACKSON's     PROCLAMATION.  FORCE 

BILL. COMPROMISE     TARIFF. PEACE. LAND     BILL. CLOSE     OF    JACK- 

SON's    first    TERM. 

The  anti-tariff  excitement  at  the  south  continued  without  abatement. 
Public  meetings,  especially  in  the  state  of  South  Carolina,  the  addresses 
of  M'Duffie,  Hayne,  Hamilton,  and  other  high  officials,  and  the  acts 
and  proceedings  of  the  state  legislature,  kept  the  public  mind  in  a  state 
of  effervescence.  Forcible  resistance,  so  long  threatened,  was  at  length 
resolved  on,  as  "the  last  resort" — as  the  only  remedy  for  the  evils 
inflicted  upon  them  by  the  general  government.  It  is  not  improbable  that 
the  countenance  given  in  several  states  to  the  doctrines  of  Hayne  and 
others  in  the  senate  had  encouraged  the  Carolinians  in  their  purposes 
of  practical  nullification.  The  legislatures  of  Virginia  and  Georgia 
had  also  asserted  the  principles  of  nullification ;  but  these  states  were 
unwilling  to  carry  out  those  principles  by  a  forcible  opposition  to  the 
tariff  laws.  Georgia,  however,  had  denied  the  authority  of  the  supreme 
court  to  decide  questions  involving  the  validity  of  treaties,  and  of  the 
laws  of  congress ;  and  the  executive  had  sanctioned  her  construction 
of  the  constitution. 

The  note  of  preparation  for  collision  with  the  general  government  was 
at  length  sounded.  The  legislature  of  South  Carolina  was  convened  by 
the  governor  the  22d  of  October,  1832,  for  the  purpose  of  authorizing 
a  convention  "  to  consider  the  character  and  extent  of  the  usurpations 
of  the  general  government."  An  act  was  accordingly  passed  for  a  con- 
vention to  be  held  on  the  3d  Monday  of  November.  The  passage  of 
the  act  was  hailed  at  the  seat  of  government  by  the  firing  of  cannon, 
and  music  from  a  band  stationed  near  the  doors  of  the  capitol.  The 
members  of  the  minority,  belonging  to  the  "  union,  state  rights  and 
Jackson  party,"  held  a  meeting,  at  which  they  declared  their  opposition 
to  the  nullification  scheme,  and  appealed  to  the  people  of  the  state  to 
discountenance  it. 

The  convention  assembled  on  the  19th  of  November,  and  on  the 
24th,  adopted  an  ordinance  declaring  the  tariff  act  null  and  void; 
making  it  unlawful  for  the  authorities  of  either  the  general  or  state 
government  to  enforce  the  payment  of  duties  within  that  state ;  and 
enjoining  the  legislature  to  pass  laws  giving  effect  to  the  ordinance. 
No  sanction  was  to  be  given  to  any  appeal  to  the  supreme  court  of  the 


Jackson's  proclamation.  577 

United  States,  from  the  decisions  of  the  state  courts,  involving  the 
authority  of  the  ordinance,  or  the  validity  of  any  acts  of  the  legislature 
giving  eflfect  thereto,  or  the  validity  of  the  tariff  act  of  congress.  All 
public  ofl&cers  were  required  to  take  an  oath  to  obey  and  execute  the 
ordinance,  and  the  acts  of  the  state  passed  in  pursuance  thereof.  Any 
act  that  congress  should  pass  to  authorize  the  employment  of  force 
against  South  Carolina,  was  declared  to  be  null  and  void,  and  would 
not  be  submitted  to ;  and  from  the  time  of  its  passage,  the  state  would 
consider  herself  absolved  from  farther  obligations  to  the  union,  and 
proceed  to  organize  a  separate  government.  The  ordinance  was  to  take 
effect  the  1st  of  February,  1833. 

The  president,  in  his  message  to  congress,  in  December,  briefly 
alluded  to  the  opposition  to  the  revenue  laws  which  had  arisen  in  that 
state.  He  expressed  the  belief  that  the  laws  themselves  were  adequate 
to  the  suppression  of  any  attempt  that  might  be  made  to  thwart  their 
execution;  but  said:  "Should  the  exigency  arise,  rendering  the  execu- 
tion of  the  existing  laws  impracticable,  from  any  cause  whatever,  prompt 
notice  of  it  will  be  given  to  congress,  with  a  suggestion  of  such  views 
and  measures  as  may  be  deemed  necessary  to  meet  it." 

The  message  had  scarcely  been  delivered,  when  intelligence  of  the 
passage  of  the  ordinance  by  the  South  Carolina  convention  reached 
Washington.  On  the  11th  of  December  was  issued  the  celebrated  pro- 
clamation of  president  Jackson,  in  which  he  stated  his  views  of  the  con- 
stitution and  laws  applicable  to  the  measures  adopted  by  the  conven- 
tion, and  declared  the  course  which  duty  would  require  him  to  pursue. 

A  clearer,  and,  as  is  believed,  a  more  correct  exposition  of  the  nature 
and  powers  of  the  general  government  is  hardly  to  be  found  in  any 
public  document.  The  proclamation  combatted  the  nullifying  doctrine 
of  the  convention,  that  there  is  no  appeal  from  the  decision  of  a  state. 
It  regarded  reasoning  on  the  subject  superfluous,  as  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States  expressly  declared,  that  the  constitution  and  the 
treaties  and  laws  made  under  it,  were  ''  the  supreme  law  of  the  land," 
and  that  "  the  judges  in  every  state  were  bound  thereby,  any  thing  in 
the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  state  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 
Said  the  president :  "  No  federative  government  could  exist  without  a 
similar  provision.  Look  for  a  moment  at  the  consequence.  If  South 
Carolina  considers  the  revenue  laws  unconstitutional,  and  has  a  right 
to  prevent  their  execution  in  the  port  of  Charleston,  there  would  be  a 
clear  constitutional  objection  to  their  collection  in  every  other  port,  and 
no  revenue  could  be  collected  anywhere ;  for  all  imposts  must  be  equal. 
It  is  no  answer  to  repeat,  that  an  unconstitutional  law  is  no  law,  so 
long  as  the  question  of  its  legality  is  to  be  decided  by  the  state  itself 

37 


578  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

for  every  law  operating  iujuriously  upon  local  interests  will  be  perhaps 
thought,  and  certainly  represented,  as  unconstitutional;  and,  as  has 
been  shown,  there  is  no  appeal. 

"  If  this  doctrine  had  been  established  at  an  earlier  day,  the  union 
would  have  been  dissolved  in  its  infancy.  The  excise  law  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, the  embargo  and  non-intercourse  law  in  the  eastern  states,  the 
carriage  tax  in  Virginia,  were  all  deemed  unconstitutional,  and  were 
more  unequal  in  their  operation  than  any  of  the  laws  now  complained 
of;  but  fortunately  none  of  those  states  discovered  that  they  had  the 
right  now  claimed  by  South  Carolina.  *  *  *  The  discovery  of  this 
important  feature  in  our  constitution  was  reserved  to  the  present  day. 
To  the  statesmen  of  South  Carolina  belongs  the  invention,  and  upon  the 
citizens  of  that  state  will  unfortunately  fall  the  evils  of  reducing  it  to 
practice. 

"  If  the  doctrine  of  a  state  veto  upon  the  laws  of  the  union  carries 
with  it  internal  evidence  of  its  impracticable  absurdity,  our  constitutional 
history  will  also  afford  abundant  proof  that  it  would  have  been  repudi- 
ated with  indignation,  had  it  been  proposed  to  form  a  feature  in  our 
government." 

The  president  here  adverts  to  the  leagues  formed  during  our  colonial 
state;  and  to  the  confederation.  Every  state  was  to  "abide  by  the  de- 
terminations of  congress,  on  all  questions,  which,  by  the  confederation, 
should  be  submitted  to  them."  He  said  :  "  Under  the  confederation, 
then,  no  state  could  legally  annul  a  decision  of  the  congress,  or  refuse  to 
submit  to  its  execution ;  but  no  provision  was  made  to  enforce  these  de- 
cisions. Congress  made  requisitions,  but  they  were  not  complied  with. 
The  government  could  not  operate  on  individuals.  They  had  no  judi- 
ciary, no  means  of  collecting  revenue.  *  *  *  This  state  of  things 
could  not  be  endured ;  and  our  present  happy  constitution  was  formed, 
but  formed  in  vain,  if  this  fatal  doctrine  prevail."  A  "  more  perfect 
union"  was  then  formed  by  "  the  people  of  the  United  States;"  and  he 
asks  :  "  Can  it  be  conceived  that  an  instrument  made  for  the  purpose  of 
forming  a  more  perfect  union  than  the  confederation,  could  be  so  con- 
structed by  the  assembled  wisdom  of  our  country,  as  to  substitute  for 
that  confederation  a  form  of  government  dependent  for  its  existence  on 
the  local  interest,  the  party  spirit  of  a  state,  or  of  a  prevailing  faction 
of  a  state?"  He  then  says:  "  The  constitution  declares  that  the  judi- 
cial powers  of  the  United  States  extend  to  cases  arising  under  the  laws 
of  the  United  States,  and  that  such  laws,  the  constitution,  and  treaties 
shall  be  paramount  to  the  state  constitutions  and  laws." 

In  relation  to  the  threat  of  seceding  from  the  union,  in  case  of  an  at- 
tempt to  enforce  the  revenue  laws,  the  president  says  :  "  This  right  to 


Jackson's  proclamation.  579 

secede  is  deduced  from  the  nature  of  the  constitution,  which,  they  say,  is 
a  compact  between  sovereign  states  who  have  preserved  their  whole 
sovereignty,  and  therefore  are  subject  to  no  superior  ;  that  because  they 
made  the  compact,  they  can  break  it  when,  in  their  opinion,  it  has  been 
departed  from  by  the  other  states.  Fallacious  as  this  reasoning  is,  it 
enlists  state  pride,  and  finds  advocates  in  the  honest  prejudices  of  those 
who  have  not  studied  the  nature  of  our  government  sufficiently  to  see 
the  radical  error  on  which  it  rests." 

The  nature  of  the  union  under  the  constitution  is  thus  described : — 
"  The  people  of  the  United  States  formed  the  constitution,  acting  through 
the  state  legislatures  in  making  the  compact,  to  meet  and  discuss  its 
provisions,  and  acting  in  separate  conventions  when  they  ratified  those 
provisions  ;  but  the  terms  used  in  its  construction,  show  it  to  be  a  gov- 
ernment in  which  the  people  of  all  the  states  collectively  are  represented. 
We  are  one  people  in  the  choice  of  the  president  and  vice-president. 
Here  the  states  have  no  other  agency  than  to  direct  the  mode  in  which 
the  votes  shall  be  given.  The  candidates  having  the  majority  of  all  the 
votes  are  chosen.  The  electors  of  a  majority  of  the  states  may  have 
given  their  votes  for  one  candidate,  and  yet  another  may  be  chosen.  The 
people,  then,  and  not  the  states,  are  represented  in  the  executive  branch. 

"  In  the  house  of  representatives  there  is  this  difference,  that  the  peo- 
ple of  one  state  do  not,  as  in  the  case  of  president  and  vice-president,  all 
vote  for  the  same  officers.  The  people  of  all  the  states  do  not  vote  for 
all  the  members,  each  state  electing  only  its  own  representatives.  But 
this  creates  no  material  distinction.  When  chosen,  they  are  all  repre- 
gentatives  of  the  United  States,  not  representatives  of  the  particular 
state  from  which  they  come.  They  are  paid  by  the  United  States,  not 
by  the  state ;  nor  are  they  accountable  to  it  for  any  act  done  in  the  per- 
formance of  their  legislative  functions ;  and  however  they  may  in  prac- 
tice, as  it  is  their  duty  to  do,  consult  and  prefer  the  interests  of  their 
particular  constituents  when  they  come  in  conflict  with  any  other  partial 
or  local  interest,  yet  it  is  their  first  and  highest  duty,  as  representatives 
of  the  United  States,  to  promote  the  general  good. 

"  The  constitution  of  the  United  States,  then,  forms  a  government, 
not  a  league ;  and  whether  it  be  formed  by  compact  between  the  states, 
or  in  any  other  manner,  its  character  is  the  same.  It  is  a  government 
in  which  all  the  people  are  represented,  which  operates  directly  on  the 
people  individually,  not  upon  the  states ;  they  retained  all  the  power 
they  did  not  grant.  But  each  state  having  expressly  parted  with  so 
many  powers  as  to  constitute,  jointly  with  the  other  states,  a  single  na- 
tion, can  not,  from  that  period,  possess  any  right  to  secede,  because  such 
secession  does  not  break  a  league,  but  destroys  the  unity  of  a  nation; 


580  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

and  any  injury  to  that  unity  is  not  only  a  breach  which  would  result 
from  the  contravention  of  a  compact,  but  it  is  an  offense  against  the 
whole  union.  To  say  that  any  state  may  at  pleasure  secede  from  the 
union,  is  to  say  that  the  United  States  are  not  a  nation ;  because  it 
would  be  a  solecism  to  contend  that  any  part  of  a  nation  might  dissolve 
its  connection  with  the  other  parts,  to  their  injury  or  ruin,  without  com- 
mittiDg  any  offense.  Secession,  like  any  other  revolutionary  act,  may 
be  morally  justified  by  the  extremity  of  oppression  ;  but  to  call  it  a  con- 
stitutional right,  is  confounding  the  meaning  of  terms,  and  can  only  be 
done  through  gross  error,  or  to  deceive  those  wha  are  willing  to  assert 
a  right,  but  would  pause  before  they  made  a  revolution,  or  incur  the 
penalties  consequent  on  a  failure.     #     *     * 

"  Because  the  union  was  formed  by  compact,  it  is  said  the  parties  to 
that  compact  may,  when  they  feel  themselves  aggrieved,  depart  from  it ; 
but  it  is  precisely  because  it  is  a  compact,  that  they  can  not.  A  com- 
pact is  an  agreement  or  binding  obligation.  It  may,  by  its  terms,  have 
a  sanction  or  penalty  for  its  breach,  or  it  may  not.  If  it  contains  no 
sanction,  it  may  be  broken  with  no  other  consequence  than  moral  guilt ; 
if  it  have  a  sanction,  then  the  breach  incurs  the  designated  or  implied 
penalty.  A  league  between  independent  nations,  generally,  has  no  sanc- 
tion other  than  a  moral  one;  or  if  it  should  contain  a  penalty,  as  there 
is  no  common  superior,  it  cannot  be  enforced.  A  government,  on  the 
contrary,  always  has  a  sanction,  express  or  implied ;  and,  in  our  case, 
it  is  both  necessarily  implied  and  expressly  given.  An  attempt,  by 
force  of  arms,  to  destroy  a  government,  is  an  offense,  by  whatever  means 
the  constitutional  compact  may  have  been  formed ;  and  such  government 
has  the  right,  by  the  law  of  self-defense,  to  pass  acts  to  punish  the 
offender,  unless  that  right  is  modified,  Restrained,  or  resumed,  by  the 
constitutional  act." 

"  The  assumed  right  of  secession,"  he  repeated,  "  rests  on  the  alleged 
undivided  sovereignty  of  the  states,  and  on  their  having  formed,  in  this 
sovereign  capacity,  a  compact,  which  is  called  the  constitution,  from 
which,  because  they  made  it,  they  have  the  right  to  secede."  This  posi- 
tion he  deemed  erroneous,  saying :  "  The  states  severally  have  not  re- 
tained their  entire  sovereignty.  It  has  been  shown  that,  in  becoming 
parts  of  a  nation,  not  members  of  a  league,  they  surrendered  many  of 
their  parts  of  sovereignty.  The  right  to  make  treaties,  declare  war, 
levy  taxes,  exercise  exclusive  judicial  and  legislative  powers,  were  all  of 
them  functions  of  sovereign  power.  The  states,  then,  for  all  these  im- 
portant powers,  were  no  longer  sovereign.  The  allegiance  of  their  citi- 
zens was  transferred,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States ;  they  became  American  citizens,  and  owed  obedience  to 


581 

the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  to  the  laws  made  in  conformi- 
ty with  the  powers  it  vested  in  congress." 

The  president  admonishes  the  Carolinians  not  to  incur  the  penalty  of 
the  laws,  and  tells  them  they  have  been  deluded  by  men  who  were  either 
deceived  themselves,  or  wished  to  deceive  others ;  who  had  led  the  peo- 
ple to  the  brink  of  insurrection  and  treason,  under  the  pretense,  that 
the  diminution  of  the  price  of  their  staple  commodity,  and  the  conse- 
quent diminution  in  the  value  of  their  lands,  caused  by  over  production 
in  other  quarters,  were  the  sole  effect  of  the  tariff.  And  he  mentioned 
the  various  arts  and  arguments  and  appeals  of  these  men  to  induce  them 
to  enter  this  dangerous  course. 

Again  addressing  his  "  fellow-citizens  of  the  United  States,"  he  says  ! 
'*  The  threat  of  unhallowed  disunion,  the  names  of  those,  once  respected, 
by  whom  it  is  uttered,  the  array  of  military  force  to  support  it,  denote 
the  approach  of  a  crisis  in  our  affairs,  on  which  the  continuance  of  our 
unexampled  prosperity,  our  political  existence,  and  perhaps  that  of  all 
free  governments,  may  depend.  The  conjuncture  demanded  a  free,  a  full, 
and  explicit  enunciation,  not  only  of  my  intentions,  but  of  my  principles 
of  action  ;  and  as  the  claim  was  asserted  of  a  right  by  a  state  to  annul 
the  laws  of  the  union,  and  even  to  secede  from  it  at  pleasure,  a  frank  ex- 
position of  my  opinions  in  relation  to  the  origin  and  form  of  our  govern- 
ment, and  the  construction  I  give  to  the  instrument  by  which  it  was 
created,  seemed  to  be  proper.  Having  the  fullest  confidence  in  the  just- 
ness of  the  legal  and  constitutional  opinion  of  my  duties  which  has  been 
expressed,  I  rely,  with  equal  confidence,  on  your  undivided  support  in 
my  determination  to  execute  the  laws,  to  preserve  the  union  by  all  con- 
stitutional means,  to  arrest,  if  possible,  by  moderate,  but  firm  measures, 
the  necessity  of  a  recourse  to  force ;  and,  if  it  be  the  will  of  Heaven, 
that  the  recurrence  of  its  primeval  curse  on  man  for  the  shedding  of  a 
brother's  blood  should  fall  upon  our  land,  that  it  be  not  called  down  by 
an}^  offensive  act  of  the  United  States." 

The  views  expressed  in  the  foregoing  exposition  of  the  nature  and 
powers  of  the  general  government,  are,  as  will  be  seen,  the  opposite  of 
those  claimed  for  the  president  by  his  friends  in  the  "  great  debate  "  in 
the  senate,  in  1830.  They  are  substantially  those  maintained  by  Mr. 
Webster  and  other  opposition  senators  ;  and  they  differ  in  no  particular, 
it  is  believed,  from  the  opinions  expressed  in  that  debate  by  senator 
Livingston,  who  was  at  this  time  secretary  of  state,  and  who  had  the 
credit  of  having  prepared  the  proclamation.  The  authority  so  unquali- 
fiedly denied  to  the  supreme  court  by  Messrs.  Hayne,  Benton,  Rowan,, 
and  other  administration  senators,  is  here  fully  acknowledged  as  well  as 
ably  maintained. 


582  THE    AMERICAN    STATESBTAN. 

Immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  the  South  Carolina  convention, 
on  the  27th  of  November,  1832,  the  legislature  assembled,  and  passed 
the  laws  necessary  to  give  effect  to  the  ordinance.  These  laws  prohibit- 
ed the  collection  of  the  revenue  by  the  ofl&cers  of  the  United  States,  and 
placed  at  the  command  of  the  governor  the  militia  of  the  state,  to  resist 
the  enforcement  of  the  laws.  Arms  and  ammunition  were  ordered  to  be 
purchased,  and  all  needful  preparation  was  made  for  that  purpose. 

The  proclamation  of  the  president  met  a  most  unwelcome  reception  in 
that  state.  It  was  denounced  as  a  "  declaration  of  war  by  Andrew 
Jackson  against  the  state  of  South  Carolina ;"  the  "  edict  of  a  dictator  ;" 
a  "  federal  manifesto,  palmed  upon  us  as  Andrew  Jackson's,  by  Living- 
ston or  Van  Buren,  or  some  other  intriguer  behind  the  dictator's  throne  ;" 
and  the  people  of  the  state  were  exhorted  to  "  take  up  arms"  as  the 
"  only  course  which  honor  and  duty  prescribed  "  for  the  defense  of  the 
state.  The  proclamation  was  received  with  equal  disfavor  by  the  legis- 
lature. In  the  house  of  representatives,  Mr.  Preston  said  :  "  We  should 
hurl  back  instant  scorn  and  defiance  for  this  impotent  missile  of  des- 
picable malignity.  Of  answer  to  its  paltry  sophisms  and  disgraceful 
invectives,  it  is  utterly  unworthy.  But  the  country  and  the  world 
should  know  how  perfectly  we  despise  and  defy  him ;  and  they  should 
be  told  that  before  they  plant  such  principles  as  his  upon  our  free  soil, 
the  bones  of  many  an  enemy  shall  whiten  our  shores — the  carcasses  of 
many  a  caitiff  and  traitor  blacken  our  air."  The  governor  was  request- 
ed to  issue  a  proclamation,  warning  the  people  not  to  be  seduced  by  the 
president  from  their  allegiance  ;  "  exhorting  them  to  disregard  his  vaiu 
menaces,  and  to  be  prepared  to  sustain  the  dignity,  and  protect  the 
liberty  of  the  state." 

The  governor  of  the  state  at  this  time  was  Mr.  Hayne,  who  had  just 
been  elected,  and  whose  place  in  the  senate  of  the  United  States  had 
been  supplied  by  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  who  had  for  this  pur- 
pose resigned  the  office  of  vice-president  in  the  latter  part  of  December. 
A  proclamation  was  accordingly  issued  by  Gov.  Hayne.  It  opposes  that 
of  the  president  by  a  constitvitional  exposition  similar  to  that  contained 
in  his  speeches  in  1830;  and,  claiming  for  the  states  "  nullification  as 
the  rightful  remedy,"  he  requires  the  people  of  the  state  to  protect  their 
liberties,  "if  need  be,  with  their  lives  and  fortunes;"  concluding  with  an 
invocation  to  "  that  great  and  good  Being,  who,  as  a  '  father,  careth  for 
his  children,'  to  inspire  them  with  that  holy  zeal  in  a  good  cause, 
which  is  the  best  safeguard  of  their  rights  and  liberties." 

Orders  were  also  issued  for  increasing  the  military  force  of  the  state; 
and  the  governor  was  authorized  to  accept  the  services  of  volunteers, 
who  were  to  be  ready  to  take  the  field  at  a  moment's  warning,  "  to  sup- 


FORCE    BILL.  583 

press  insurrection,  repel  invasion,  or  support  the  civil  authorities  in  the 
execution  of  the  laws."  The  "  union  party"  men,  however,  were  deter- 
mined to  sustain  the  general  government. 

The  belligerent  proceedings  of  the  Carolina  legislature  were  followed, 
on  the  16th  of  January^  1833,  by  a  message  of  the  president  to  congress, 
communicating  the  proceedings  of  South  Carolina,  and  suggesting  the 
adoption  of  such  measures  as  the  crisis  seemed  to  demand.  A  bill  was 
reported  by  the  judiciary  committee,  empowering  the  president  to  employ 
the  land  and  naval  forces  of  the  union,  to  enforce  the  collection  of  the 
revenue,  if  resistance  should  be  offered. 

While  preparations  were  making  for  the  expected  conflict,  measures 
were  in  progress  designed  to  avert  the  dreaded  calamity.  The  state  of 
Virginia  assumed  the  ofl&ce  of  mediator.  Kcsolutions  were  adopted  by 
the  legislature,  requesting  South  Carolina  to  rescind  her  nullifying  ordi- 
nance, or  at  least  to  suspend  its  operation  until  the  close  of  the  first 
session  of  the  next  congress  ;  requesting  congress  gradually  and  speedily 
to.  reduce  the  revenue  from  duties  on  imports  to  the  standard  of  the 
necessary  expenditures  of  the  government ;  and  reasserting  the  doctrines 
of  state  sovereignty  and  state  rights  as  set  forth  in  the  resolutions  of 
1798,  which  neither  sanctioned  the  ordinance  of  South  Carolina,  nor 
countenanced  all  the  principles  of  the  proclamation,  many  of  which,  they 
said,  were  in  direct  conflict  with  them.  It  was  also  resolved  to  appoint 
a  commissioner  to  proceed  to  South  Carolina,  with  the  resolutions,  and 
communicate  them  to  the  governor,  to  be  laid  before  the  legislature ; 
and  to  expostulate  with  the  public  authorities  and  people  of  that  state 
for  the  preservation  of  the  peace  of  the  union.  Benjamin  Watkins 
Leigh  was  appointed  to  the  mission. 

Another  measure  having  in  view  the  conciliation  of  the  southern  op- 
ponents of  the  tariff,  was  a  new  attempt  to  modify  the  tariff.  The  secre- 
tary of  the  treasury  in  his  report  to  congress  urged  a  reduction  of  the 
duties  to  the  revenue  standard  ;  and  in  the  house,  the  subject  was  re- 
ferred to  the  committee  of  ways  and  means.  On  the  27th  of  December, 
Mr.  Yerplanck,  chairman,  reported  a  bill,  proposing  a  gradual  reduction 
of  duties,  within  two  years,  to  little  more  than  half  the  rates  under 
former  tariffs.  The  discussion  of  this  bill  continued  until  late  in  Feb- 
ruary, less  than  two  weeks  before  the  close  of  the  session ;  having  under- 
gone so  many  amendments  as  almost  to  have  lost  its  identity.  Although 
there  was  little  prospect  of  its  passage  at  this  session,  the  friends  of  a 
protecting  tariff  feared  that  another  attempt  would  be  made  in  the  next 
congress,  and  perhaps  with  success,  to  destroy  protection. 

Under  this  apprehension,  and  while  the  "  bill  to  provide  further  for 
the  collection  of  the  duties  on  imports,"  or  "  force  bill,"  was  still  pend- 


584  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN, 

ing  in  the  senate,  Mr.  Clay,  on  the  12th  of  February,  1833,  introduced 
his  compromise  tariff  bill,  which  he  explained  and  supported  by  a  speech 
of  considerable  length.     The  bill  had  two  objects :  one  was  to  prevent 
the  destruction  of  the  tariff  policy,  which  was  in  imminent  danger ;  the 
other,  to  avert  civil  war.  and  restore  peace  and  tranquillity  to  the  country. 
By  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  as  finally  passed,  in  all  cases  where  the 
duties  on  foreign  goods  exceeded  20  per  cent.,  the  excess  was  to  be 
gradually  deducted  by  the    30th  day  of   September,  1842,  thus  :  one- 
tenth  from  and  after  the  30th  day  of  December,  1833;  another  tenth 
after  the  30th  day  of  September,  1835,  and  another  tenth  every  second 
year  thereafter,  until  the   30th  of  September,  1841  ;  after  which  day, 
one-half  of  the  remaining  excess ;    and  after  the    30th  of  September, 
1842,  the  residue  of  such   excess.     It  was  provided,  however,  that  the 
duty  on  coarse  woolens  costing  not  more  than   35  cts.  the  square  yard, 
which  had,  by  the  tariff  act  of  1832,  been  reduced  to  5  per  cent.,  should 
first  be  raised  to  50  per  cent.,  the  same  as  was  charged  on  other  woolens. 
To  the  list  of  articles  free  of  duty,  after  the  30th  of  September,  1833, 
were  added,  linens,  silk  manufactures  coming  from  this  side  of  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope,  and  worsted  stuff  goods;  and  after  1842,  a  large  number 
of  other  articles,  most  of  them,  however,  such  as  were  not  produced  in 
this  country,  or  as  did  not  need  protection.     After  1842,  however,  on  all 
goods  then  free,  or  paying  a  less  duty  than  20  per  cent.,  congress  might, 
at  discretion,  impose  duties  not  exceeding  20  per  cent,  on  the  home  valu- 
ation ;  and  all  duties  were,  after  1842,  to  be  paid  in  cash,  and  credits 
abolished. 

On  the  question  of  granting  leave  to  introduce  the  bill,  the  objection 
was  made  by  some  senators,  that  bills  for  raising  revenue,  (and  such  were 
all  tariff  bills,)  could  originate  only  in  the  house  of  representatives.  On 
the  other  hand  it  was  contended,  that  this  being  a  bill  to  reduce  the 
revenue,  its  originating  in  the  senate  was  not  prohibited  by  the  consti- 
tution. 

The  opposition  to  the  bill  was  chiefly  from  the  advocates  of  protec- 
tion. Mr.  Webster  opposed  the  bill,  because,  in  giving  up  specific  duties 
and  substituting  ad  valorem^  the  bill  abandoned  the  protective  policy. 
It  seemed  to  surrender  the  constitutional  power  of  protection.  He 
opposed  it  because  it  restricted  the  future  legislation  of  congress.  After 
a  few  of  the  first  reductions,  the  manufacturers  of  some  kinds  of  goods 
would  be  ruined.  Of  these  goods  were  boots,  shoes,  and  clothing. 
Calico  printing  establishments  would  be  broken  up.  Woolen  establish- 
ments could  not  stand  with  a  duty  of  20  per  cent.  The  protection  on 
iron,  too,  was  insufficient.     The  change  from  specific   to   ad  valorem 


COMPROMISE   TARIFF.  585 

duties  would  be  injurious.     The  surrender  once  made,  we  c  juld  never 
return  to  the  present  state  of  things. 

Mr.  Clay  replied.  He  said  the  honorable  gentleman  apprehended  no 
danger  to  the  tariff.  "Witness  the  recent  elections — the  message  of  the 
president — the  opposition  of  a  majority  of  the  friends  of  the  administra- 
tion to  the  tariff.  The  protection  afforded  by  the  bill  would  be  ample 
for  several  years,  during  which  period  manufactures  would  acquire 
strength.  He  was  willing  the  manufacturers  themselves  should  decide 
the  question  ;  many  of  them,  then  in  Washington,  and  others  from  whom 
he  had  received  letters,  had  expressed  themselves  in  favor  of  the  bill. 
They  now  would  know  what  to  depend  on,  and  could  regulate  their  opera- 
tions accordingl3^  He  did  not  fear  any  misconstruction  of  the  pledge  con- 
tained in  the  bill ;  and  he  hoped  the  manufacturers  would  go  on  and 
prosper,  confident  that  the  abandonment  of  protection  was  never  intended, 
and  looking  to  more  favorable  times  for  a  renewal  of  a  more  effective 
tariff.  Mr.  C.  also  replied  to  the  remarks  of  gentlemen  who  would 
enforce  the  collection  of  duties  under  the  existing  laws,  without  making 
any  concession  to  South  Carolina.  He  said  :  "  The  opponents  of  the 
bill  rely  on  force ;  its  friends  cry  out  force  and  affection.  One  side 
cries  out,  power !  power  !  power  !  The  other  side  cries  out,  power,  but 
desires  to  see  it  restrained  and  tempered  by  discretion  and  mercy, 
and  not  create  a  conflagration  from  one  end  of  the  union  to  the  other." 

On  the  day  of  the  above  debate,  (Feb.  25,)  on  motion  of  Mr.  Letcher, 
of  Kentucky,  the  committee  of  the  whole,  in  the  house  of  representatives, 
struck  out  the  body  of  Mr.  Yerplanck's  bill,  and  inserted  that  of  Mr. 
Clay,  from  the  senate.  It  was  ordered  the  same  day  to  its  third  read- 
ing; ayes,  105  ;  noes,  71 ;  and  on  the  next  day  it  was  passed,  118  to  84. 

On  the  first  of  March,  the  bill  as  passed  by  the  house,  was  again 
taken  up  in  the  senate,  and  supported  by  Messrs.  Calhoun,  Ewing, 
Mangum,  Clayton,  Frelinghuysen,  Sprague,  Holmes,  Bibb,  and  Clay  ; 
and  opposed  by  Messrs.  Robbins,  Dallas,  Webster,  Silsbee,  Forsyth, 
and  Wright,  the  last  objecting,  among  other  things,  to  the  abolition  of 
specific  and  discriminating  duties.  Both  he  and  Mr.  Forsyth,  however, 
voted  for  the  bill,  probably  on  the  ground  of  its  being  a  measure  of  paci- 
fication.    The  vote  on  its  passage  was,  ayes,  29  ;  noes,  16. 

The  final  passage  of  the  "  enforcement  bill,"  was  delayed  in  the 
senate,  until  the  20th  of  February,  when  it  was  passed  :  ayes,  32  ;  nays 
1 — Mr.  Tyler ;  other  senators  opposed  to  the  bill,  having  withdrawn. 
It  passed  the  house  on  the  28th  :  ayes,  150  ;  noes,  35. 

The  nullifying  acts  of  South  Carolina  were  to  go  into  effect  the  first 
of  February.  Their  operation,  however,  was  suspended.  The  interpo- 
sition of  Virginia  would  seem  to  have  been  most  effectual,  having  accom- 
plished its  object  in  advance  of  the  arrival  of  commissioner  Leigh  in 


586  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

South  Carolina.  Gov.  Hayne,  in  answer  to  the  communication  of  Mr. 
Leigh,  conveying  the  request  of  the  state  of  Virginia,  said  as  soon  as  it 
was  known  that  that  state  had  taken  up  the  subject  in  a  friendly  spirit, 
and  that  a  bill  for  the  modification  of  the  tariff  was  before  congress,  it 
was  determined,  by  common  consent,  to  suspend  the  operation  of  the 
ordinance  until  after  the  adjournment  of  congress.  The  passage  of  the 
compromise  tariff  act,  though  not  altogether  acceptable,  was  gladly 
accepted  as  furnishing  an  ostensible  reason  for  retreating  from  the  unen- 
viable position  she  had  rashly  assumed.  The  convention  was  reassem- 
bled on  the  1 1th  of  March,  at  the  call  of  the  governor ;  and  the  nullifying 
ordinance  was  repealed  on  the  alleged  ground  of  the  modification  of  the 
tariff,  and  the  friendly  disposition  of  the  state  of  Virginia. 

The  enforcing  act,  however,  was  roundly  reprobated.  The  president 
of  the  convention,  on  its  reassembling,  pronounced  the  act  of  congress 
"  to  coerce  a  sovereign  state  in  this  union,"  a  "  broad  usurpation."  As 
far  as  its  authority  extended,  it  "  changed  the  character  of  our  govern- 
ment into  a  military  despotism." 

The  committee  of  the  union  convention,  appointed  to  fix  the  time  and 
place  for  its  reassembling,  considering  peace  restored,  postponed  indefi- 
nitely the  contemplated  meeting ;  stating,  however,  that  if  new  acts  of 
tyranny  by  the  dominant  party  should  call  for  opposition,  the  convention 
would  be  convoked. 

As  was  expected.  South  Carolina  claimed  the  glory  of  a  triumph. 
The  sentiments  of  the  nullifying  party  generally,  were  correctly  ex- 
pressed in  the  following,  from  one  of  its  leading  newspapers :  "  Never 
was  there  a  prouder  instance  of  the  might  of  just  principles,  backed  by 
a  high  courage.  This  little  state,  in  the  mere  panoply  of  courage  and 
high  principles,  has  foiled  the  swaggering  giant  of  the  union.  30,000 
Carolinians  have  not  only  awed  the  wild  west  into  respect — compelled 
Pennsylvania  stolidity  into  something  like  sense — New  York  corruption 
into  something  like  decency — Yankee  rapacity  into  a  sort  of  image  of 
honesty  ;  but,  (alluding  to  the  union  party^)  all  this  has  been  loftily  and 
steadily  done  in  the  face  of  17,000 — what  shall  we  call  them?  What 
epithet  is  of  a  shame,  wide,  lasting  and  deep  enough,  for  the  betrayers  of 
the  liberties  of  their  own  country — the  instigators  of  merciless  slaugh- 
ter— the  contrivers  of  irretrievable  servitude,  against  their  own  strug- 
gling state  ? 

"  The  tariff,  then,  is  overthrown ;  the  corrupt  majorities  in  congress 
have  yielded.  The  madness  of  the  government  has,  at  last,  found  a  slight 
lucid  interval."  Speaking  of  "  Wllkins'  bill ;  the  '  bloody  bill,'  "  as  the 
collection  act  was  called,  the  editor  said  he  believed  it  had  been 
passed  "  in  mere  bravado,  only  to  cover  the  shame  of  their  defeat ;" 


LAND    BILL.  587 

it  was  "quite  certain  that  it  would  not  be  submitted  to  by  that 
state." 

The  three  union  members  of  congress,  Blair,  Drayton,  and  Mitchell, 
were  denounced  as  "  natural  wretches" — "  miscreants" — for  having  voted 
for  the  "  bloody  bill." 

A  writer  in  the  Charleston  Mercury,  indulging  in  a  pious  vein,  said  : 
"  Who  does  not  perceive  in. this  the  hand  of  the  Almighty,  supporting 
the  cause  of  the  oppressed,  and  turning  even  the  heart  of  the  oppressor 
to  the  purposes  of  justice  ?  *  *  *  What  less  than  that  Power  could 
have  torn  Mr.  Clay  from  his  darling  policy,  and  from  all  his  cherished 
notions  of  government,  and  have  induced  him  to  sacrifice  them  all  upon 
the  altar  of  peace  and  union  ?"  The  editor  remarked  in  relation  to  the 
passage  of  the  enforcing  bill :  "  It  may  be  considered  as  nothing  more 
than  an  ebullition  of  spleen.  It  will  record  the  spite  of  the  administra- 
tion against  certain  men,  and  show  what  enormities  it  would  perpetrate, 
were  the  opportunity  afforded.  Our  convention  will  do  no  more  than 
declare  it  void ;  and  it  will  remain  dead  upon  the  statute  book,  a  monu- 
ment of  the  corruption  of  the  times,  a  record  of  treason  to  the  constitu- 
tion and  liberty,  which  its  authors  will  ere  long  wish  in  vain  to  have 
utterly  erased  from  the  memory  of  the  republic." 

The  bill  of  Mr.  Clay,  to  distribute,  for  a  limited  time,  the  proceeds 
of  the  sales  of  public  lands,  which  passed  the  senate  at  the  preceding  ses- 
sion, was  renewed  at  the  session  of  1832-33,  and  with  some  amendments, 
passed  both  bouses  :  the  senate  by  a  vote  of  24  to  20 ;  the  house,  96  to 
40.  An  amendment  had  been  made  to  it  in  the  house,  restricting  the 
application  of  the  funds  accruing  to  the  several  states,  to  three  objects, 
education,  internal  improvement  and  colonization.  This  amendment  was 
concurred  in  by  the  senate  on  the  1st  of  March,  the  last  day  but  one  of 
the  session,  the  3d  of  March  happening  this  year  on  Sunday.  The  bill 
was  sent  to  the  president  for  his  approval,  but  was  not  returned  by  him 
until  the  next  sessioii.  It  was  believed  that,  had  it  been  returned,  it 
would  have  passed  both  houses  by  the  constitutional  majority  of  two- 
thirds,  notwithstanding  the  president's  objections. 

Censures  were  unsparingly  bestowed  upon  the  president  for  his  having 
retained  the  bill.  His  friends,  however,  considered  his  course  fully  jus- 
tified by  the  lateness  of  the  hour  at  which  the  bill  was  received,  which 
rendered  it  impossible  to  give  it  due  consideration,  and  to  prepare  a 
statement  of  his  objections. 

On  the  5th  of  December,  1 833,  the  veto  message,  returning  the  bill, 
was  received  by  the  senate.  The  following  were  the  principal  objections 
stated  in  the  message : 

TliG  bill  contemplated  no  permanent  arrangement.     Being  limited  to 


588  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

five  years,  the  question  of  the  disposition  of  the  public  lands  would  again 
become  a  source  of  agitation. 

The  rule  of  distribution  proposed,  was  in  violation  of  the  condition  on 
which  they  were  ceded  by  the  states.  They  were  to  be  disposed  of  for 
the  common  benefit  of  the  states,  according  to  their  respective  propor- 
tions in  the  general  charge  and  expenditure,  and  for  no  other  purpose. 
But  the  bill  provided  that  twelve  and  a  half  per  cent,  should  be  taken 
out  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales,  for  the  benefit  of  the  states  in  which 
the  lands  were,  before  the  general  distribution  was  made  ;  and  then  the 
ratio  of  distribution  was  not  to  be  according  to  the  general  charge  and 
expenditure,  but  in  proportion  to  the  federal  representative  population. 

It  was  also  liable  to  a  constitutional  objection.  It  would  create  a 
surplus  revenue  for  distribution  among  the  states ;  and  it  reasserted  the 
principle  contained  in  the  Maysville  road  bill  of  1 830,  proposing  to  ap- 
propriate public  money  for  local  objects. 

Besides,  the  proposed  measure  would  be  of  no  advantage  to  either  the 
old  or  new  states.  Whatever  was  taken  from  the  treasury  in  this  way, 
must  be  replaced  by  collections  from  the  people  through  other  means. 

Mr.  Clay  indulged  in  strong  censures  of  the  president  for  retaining 
the  bill.  It  had  passed  the  senate  at  the  session  before  the  last,  and, 
having  been  before  the  country  a  whole  year,  and  been  made  the  subject 
of  commentary  by  the  president  himself  in  his  message,  at  the  last 
session,  it  must  have  been  understood  by  him.  The  shortness  of  the 
session,  therefore,  ought  not  to  have  prevented  the  return  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Benton  vindicated  the  president.  Of  the  one  hundred  and  forty- 
two  acts  of  the  last  session,  about  ninety  were  signed  on  the  last  day  of 
the  session,  and  thus  a  mass  of  business  had  been  thrown  on  the  president 
which  it  was  almost  impossible  to  perform.  And  now  the  people  were 
called  on  to  revolt,  because  the  president  had  not  on  that  day,  in  addi- 
tion to  this  mass  of  business,  written  the  paper  now  read,  and  sent  the 
bill  back.  He  had  made  up  his  mind  in  opposition  to  the  bill,  but  no 
human  hands  could  have  written  out  the  document  itself 

Mr.  Clay,  rejoining,  said  this  press  of  business  occurred  with  every 
president  on  the  day  before  the  termination  of  the  short  session  of  con- 
gress. But  how  did  it  happen  that  the  president  could  find  time  to 
decide  upon  so  many  new  bills  of  most  of  which  he  had  never  heard,  and 
yet  had  not  time  to  dispose  of  one  upon  which  he  had  long  before  pro- 
nounced judgment  ?  Mr.  C.  denied  that  the  constitution  gave  the  presi- 
dent ten  days  to  consider  bills  at  the  short  session.  To  guard  against  a 
sudden  adjournment,  depriving  him  of  due  time  to  consider  an  important 
bill,  the  constitution  allowed  him  ten  days ;  but  the  short  session  termi- 
nated not  by  adjournment,  but  by  a  dissolution  of  congress,  on  the  3d 


LAND    BILL.  589 

of  March,  a  day  fixed  by  the  constitution,  and  known  to  all.  Therefore, 
the  act  of  withholding  the  bill  was  unconstitutional  and  arbitrary ;  by 
which  congress  had  been  deprived  of  the  right  of  passing  on  the  bill 
after  it  had  been  considered  by  the  president.  If  he  had  not  had  time 
to  lay  his  reasons  before  the  senate,  respect  to  congress  required  of  him 
at  least  a  communication  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  Benton  said  that  no  quorum  sat  in  either  house  on  the  evening 
after  the  day  on  which  the  bill  was  sent  to  the  president. 

A  new  bill  similar  to  the  former,  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Clay,  and 
referred,  with  the  veto  message,  to  the  committee  on  public  lands.  The 
committee  reported  the  bill  to  the  senate,  with  a  review  of  all  the  ob- 
jections of  the  president.  Only  two  points  will  be  here  noticed.  The 
president  had,  in  his  annual  message  of  1832,  and  again  in  the  veto 
message,  suggested,  as  the  proper  mode  of  disposing  of  the  public  lands, 
that  the  price  should  be  graduated,  and  after  they  had  been  offered  for 
a  certain  number  of  years,  those  remaining  should  be  abandoned  to  the 
states  in  which  they  lie.  This  plan,  he  said,  would  violate  no  compact. 
Now  if  it  was  inconsistent  with  the  deeds  of  cession  to  distribute  one- 
eighth  part  of  the  proceeds  of  the  lands  to  the  new  states,  how  could  it 
be  otherwise  to  relinquish  the  whole  of  the  lands  after  a  few  years,  to 
those  states  ?  The  distribution  proposed  by  the  bill  did  not  introduce 
a  new  principle.  It  had  ever  been  the  practice  of  congress  to  make 
grants  of  land  for  the  benefit  of  the  new  states.  Eight  millions  of 
acres  had  been  thus  granted. 

The  committee  agreed  with  the  president  that  the  lands  were  ceded  on 
condition  that  they  should  be  disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit  of  the 
states,  and  for  no  other  purpose  whatever ;  and  that  the  public  debt 
might  be  considered  as  now  paid,  and  the  lands  consequently  released 
from  the  lien.  But  they  did  not  agree  with  him  that  the  power  of  con- 
gress over  all  the  public  lands  remained  the  same  under  the  constitution 
as  under  the  confederation.  Most  of  them  had  been  acquired  by  treaty. 
These  were  not  affected  either  by  the  articles  of  confederation,  or  by  the 
deeds  of  cession ;  and  congress  could  dispose  of  them  at  discretion.  And 
the  practice  had  been  to  extend  this  power  even  to  the  ceded  lands.  It 
was  impossible  to  say  whether  each  state  did  derive  benefit  from  the 
public  lands  in  proportion  to  its  charge  in  the  general  expenditure,  as 
the  amount  of  contribution  could  not  be  ascertained.  That  clause  in 
the  deeds  of  cession  had  been  inserted  in  reference  to  the  articles  of  con- 
federation, by  which  the  contribution  of  each  state  was  fixed  and  known; 
whereas,  revenue  was  now  collected,  not  from  states  in  their  sovereign 
character,  but  from  the  mass  of  the  community,  according  to  consumption. 

The  committee  on  public  lands  in  the  house,  made  a  report  at  this  ses- 


590  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN.  ^ 

sion  in  favor  of  reducing  and  graduating  the  price ,  and  a  similar  pro- 
position was  made  by  Mr.  Benton  in  the  senate.  But  no  decisive  action 
on  the  subject  was  taken  in  either  house. 

The  first  term  of  Gen.  Jackson's  administration,  which  closed  the 
3d  of  March,  1833,  was  distinguished  no  less  by  the  unusual  number 
of  important  questions  which  were  decided  under  it,  than  by  the  general 
agitation  of  the  public  mind  produced  by  the  manner  in  w^ich  many  of 
these  questions  were  determined.  Respecting  its  effects  upon  the  inter- 
ests of  the  country,  public  sentiment  was  much  divided.  This  differ- 
ence of  opinion  was  principally  confined  to  the  domestic  policy  of  the 
administration.  Even  its  opponents  acknowledged  our  foreign  relations, 
except  in  the  case  of  the  West  India  arrangement,  to  have  been  ably 
conducted.  A  commercial  treaty  was  concluded  wdth  Austria  ;  a  treaty 
with  the  Ottoman  Porte,  (Turkey;)  a  treaty  with  the  kingdom  of  the 
Two  Sicilies,  by  which  $1,720,000  was  to  be  paid,  as  an  indemnity  for 
claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  for  depredations  upon  our  com- 
merce by  the  king  of  Naples,  (Murat,)  from  1809  to  1812.  A  treaty 
of  commerce,  and  one  relating  to  boundary,  were  concluded  with  Mexico. 

An  important  treaty  with  France  also  was  concluded  at  Paris,  in  1831, 
by  Mr.  Bives,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  by  which  the  long 
standing  difficulties  between  the  two  countries  were  adjusted.  The  claim 
of  our  government  for  spoliations,  so  long  resisted  by  a  counter  claim 
for  the  alleged  non-performance  on  our  part  of  the  stipulation  in  the 
treaty  of  1778,  guarantying  to  France  assistance  in  defending  her  West 
India  islands  against  the  attacks  of  G-reat  Britain,  was  determined  by 
this  treaty.  The  sum  stipulated  to  be  paid  as  indemnity  to  American 
citizens  for  property  taken,  was  25  millions  of  francs,  or  nearly 
$5,000,000 ;  which,  though  not  exceeding  one-half  or  one-third  of  the 
original  claim,  was  probably  as  much  as  there  was  reason  to  expect :  and 
it  was  no  inconsiderable  point  gained,  that  a  long  pending  negotiation 
was  at  length  brought  to  an  amicable  termination.  French  claims 
against  the  United  States,  to  the  amount  of  1,500,000  francs,  were 
allowed  to  that  government ;  and  a  claim  of  France  for  duties  on  her 
shipping  in  the  ports  of  Louisiana,  from  which  she  claimed  exemption 
by  the  provisions  of  the  Louisiana  treaty,  was  yielded  in  the  negotiation. 
As  a  consideration  for  the  abandonment  of  this  claim,  French  wines 
were  to  be  admitted,  for  ten  years,  at  very  low  rates  of  duty ;  and 
France  stipulated  to  reduce  the  duties  on  American  long  staple  cottons 
to  the  rates  charged  on  short  staple  cottons. 

By  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  the  French  debt  was  payable  in  six  annual 
instalments,  the  first  of  which  became  due  the  2d  of  February,  1833. 
A  bill  drawn  on  the  French  government,  and  to  be  sold  on  the  best 


THE  BANK  CONTROVERSY.  591 

terms  that  could  be  obtained,  was  purchased  by  the  bank  of  the  United 
States,  and  presented  for  payment ;  but  no  appropriation  having  been 
made  for  that  purpose  by  the  chamber  of  deputies,  the  bill  was  dishon- 
ored. The  subject  was  discussed  at  several  successive  sessions  of  the 
deputies,  without  making  the  necessary  appropriations. 


CHAPTER   XLVIII. 

THE    BANK    CONTROVERSY. REMOVAL  OF  DEPOSITS. BANK  INVESTIGATION. 

The  second  term  of  Gen.  Jackson's  administration  commenced  the 
4th  of  March,  1833.  The  southern  excitement  having  been  effectually 
allayed  by  a  modification  of  the  tariff  in  which  the  south  had  agreed  to 
acquiesce,  and  the  presidential  contest  having  been  decided  by  the 
triumphant  reelection  of  the  incumbent  who  could  not  be  suspected  of 
any  future  political  aims ;  a  more  tranquil  state  of  the  public  mind  dur- 
ing the  ensuing  term,  was  generally  anticipated.  The  settlement  of  the 
bank  question  also,  at  least  for  the  ofl&cial  term  of  Glen.  Jackson,  had 
strengthened  the  general  expectation  of  a  comparatively  peaceful  admin- 
istration. As  the  event  will  show,  however,  causes  of  high  political  ex- 
citement were  not  wanting,  among  which  the  bank  controversy  was  by 
no  means  the  least. 

The  question  as  to  the  recharter  of  the  bank  having  been  determined, 
it  was  next  intended  to  withdraw  from  it  the  public  deposits,  under  the 
expressed  apprehension  that  they  were  not  safe  in  that  institution.  In 
his  last  annual  message,  (December,  1832,)  the  president  said:  "Such 
measures  as  are  within  the  reach  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  have 
been  taken  to  enable  him  to  judge  whether  the  public  deposits  in  this 
institution  may  be  regarded  as  entirely  safe ;  but  as  his  limited  power 
may  prove  inadequate  to  this  object,  I  recommend  the  subject  to  the 
attention  of  congress,  under  the  firm  belief  that  it  is  worthy  of  their 
serious  investigation.  An  inquiry  into  the  transactions  of  the  institu- 
tion, embracing  the  branches  as  well  as  the  principal  bank,  seems  called 
for  by  the  credit  which  is  given  throughout  the  country  to  many  serious 
charges  impeaching  its  character,  and  which,  if  true,  may  justly  excite 
the  apprehension,  that  it  is  no  longer  a  safe  depository  of  the  money  of 
the  people." 

The  "  measure"  taken  by  secretary  M'Lane  to  ascertain  the  security  of 


592  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  public  money,  was  the  appointment  of  Henry  Toland  to  make  the 
investigation.  Mr.  T.  reported  to  the  secretary  the  4th  of  December, 
the  day  of  the  date  of  the  message,  that  the  liabilities  of  the  bank 
amounted  to  $37,296,950 ;  and  the  fund  to  meet  them,  $79,593,870 ; 
showing  an  excess  of  $42,296,920.  As  all  its  liabilities  must  be  first 
paid  in  case  of  insolvency  or  dissolution,  he  considered  the  security  of 
the  public  money,  unquestionable.  Nor  was  there  any  doubt  of  the 
solvency  of  the  bank. 

The  committee  of  ways  and  means  also,  to  whom  were  referred  the 
transactions  of  the  bank,  in  relation  to  the  payment  of  the  public  debt, 
and  the  inquiry  into  the  present  pecuniary  and  financial  state  and  man- 
agement of  the  institution,  made  a  report  through  Mr.  Yerplanck,  chair- 
man, at  a  later  period  of  the  session,  showing  the  resources  of  the  bank 
to  be  upwards  of  $43,000,000  beyond  its  liabilities,  and  concluding  with 
a  resolution,  "  That  the  government  deposits,  may,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  house,  be  safely  continued  in  the  bank  of  the  United  States." 

The  resolution  was  opposed  by  Mr.  Polk,  who  thought  it  unnecessary 
to  sustain  the  credit  of  the  bank  by  adopting  this  resolution.  Whenever 
the  secretary  of  the  treasury  deemed  the  deposits  in  the  bank  unsafe,  it 
was  made  his  duty  to  withdraw  them,  and  to  lay  his  reasons  before  con- 
gress. After  replies  from  Messrs.  Ingersoll,  of  Conn.,  and  M'Duffie, 
the  resolution  was  adopted:  ayes,  109;  noes,  46. 

The  2d  session  of  the  22d  congress  was  closed  the  3d  day  of  March, 
1833,  by  the  expiration  of  its  official  term.  In  May,  William  J.  Duane, 
of  Pennsylvania,  was  appointed  secretary  of  the  treasury,  in  the  place  of 
Mr.  M'Lane,  who  was  transferred  to  the  head  of  the  state  department, 
made  vacant  by  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Livingston  as  minister  to  France. 

The  president,  having  determined  on  the  withdrawal  of  the  deposits 
from  the  bank  of  the  United  States,  appointed  Amos  Kendal  to  confer 
with  state  banks  in  relation  to  future  deposits  and  distribution  of  the 
public  revenue.  On  the  18th  of  September,  he  read  to  the  cabinet  a 
manifesto,  giving  his  reasons  for  removing  the  deposits,  among  which 
were,  his  belief  of  the  dangerous  tendency  of  the  bank,  and  his  suspicions 
that  its  motive  in  asking  for  a  recharter  was  to  influence  the  presidential 
election.  Documents  and  articles  had  been  printed  and  circulated,  at 
the  expense  of  the  bank,  to  influence  public  sentiment.  The  people  had, 
Dy  electing  him,  decided  against  its  recharter,  and  he  desired  to  evince 
his  gratitude  by  carrying  their  decision  into  effect.  He  assigned,  as 
additional  reasons,  the  necessity  of  a  new  arrangement  before  the  disso- 
lution of  the  bank,  the  misapplication  of  public  funds,  its  eff"orts  to 
deprive  the  government  directors  of  a  full  knowledge  of  its  concerns ;  and 
an  attempt  to  induce  the  holders  of  a  portion  of  the  three  per  cent,  stocks, 


THE    BANK    CONTROVERSY.  593 

not  to  demand  payment  for  one  or  more  years  after  notice  should  be 
given  by  the  treasury  department. 

The  charge  against  the  bank  of  having  expended  money  for  political 
purposes,  was  founded  upon  a  disclosure  made  by  four  of  the  government 
directors.  Resolutions  had  been  adopted  by.  the  board,  authorizing  the 
president  of  the  bank,  at  his  discretion,  "  to  cause  to  be  prepared  and  cir- 
culated such  documents  and-  papers  as  might  communicate  to  the  people 
information  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  operations  of  the  bank."  About 
$80,000  were  alleged  to  have  been  expended  in  the  years  1831  and 
1832,  under  these  resolutions,  for  the  printing  of  congressional  speeches, 
reports,  and  other  documents,  and  for  the  purchase  of  pamphlets  and 
newspapers,  designed  to  operate  on  elections,  and  to  secure  a  renewal  of 
the  charter.  These  directors  had  proposed  the  rescinding  of  these  reso- 
lutions ;  but  the  board,  instead  of-  favoring  the  proposition,  adopted  a 
resolution,  commending  "the  wisdom  and  integrity  of  the  president," 
and  requesting  him  "  to  continue  his  exertions  for  the  promotion  of  said 
object." 

With  respect  to  the  postponement  of  the  payment  of  the  public  debt, 
the  president  alleged,  that  in  sixteen  months  ending  in  May,  1832,  the 
bank  had  extended  its  loans  more  than  $28,000,000,  although  it  knew 
the  government  intended  to  appropriate  most  of  its  large  deposit  during 
t|;iat  year  in  payment  of  the  public  debt.  Sensible  of  its  inability  to  pay 
over  the  deposits,  a  secret  negotiation  was  commenced  for  the  holding 
back  of  about  $2,700,000  of  the  three  per  cent,  stock  held  in  Holland. 
Having  been  informed  by  the  secretary  of  his  intention  to  pay  off  one- 
half  of  the  three  per  cents  on  the  1st  of  July  following,  which  amounted 
to  about  $6,500,000,  the  president  of  the  bank  came  forthwith  to  Wash- 
ington, under  the  pretext  of  accommodating  the  importing  merchants  of 
New  York,  (which  it  had  failed  to  do.)  and  undertaking  to  pay  the  inter- 
est itself,  procured  the  consent  of  the  secretary,  after  consultation  with 
the  president,  to  postpone  the  payment  until  the  1st  of  October.  Con- 
scious that  it  would  then  be  unable  to  pay,  and  that  no  farther  indul- 
gence was  to  be  had  of  the  government,  an  agent  was  sent  secretly  to 
England  to  negotiate  with  the  holders  of  public  debt  in  Europe  to  hold 
back  their  claims  for  one  year,  offering  them  an  increased  rate  of  interest. 
Thus  the  bank  expected  to  retain  the  use  of  $5,000,000  of  money  which 
the  government  should  set  apart  for  the  payment  of  that  debt.  The 
president  believed,  had  all  these  facts  been  known  at  the  last  session  of 
congress,  the  houi»e  of  representatives  would  have  come  to  a  different 
conclusion. 

The  law  declared  that  the  deposits  should  be  made  in  the  bank  and 
its  branches,  "  unless  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  should  at  any  time 

38 


594  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

otherwise  order  and  direct,  in  which  case  he  should  immediately  lay 
before  congress,  if  in  session,  and  if  not,  immediately  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  next  session,  the  reason  of  such  order  and  direction."  This, 
gaid  the  president,  gave  the  secretary  unqualified  power  over  the  depo- 
sits ;  the  provision  that  he  should  report  his  reasons  being  no  limitation. 

Mr.  Duane,  having  been  directed  to  remove  the  deposits,  and  declining 
to  obey  the  direction,  addressed  the  president  a  letter  on  the  21st  of 
September,  accompanied  by  a  copy  of  his  commission ;  a  copy  of  his 
oath  of  office,  pledging  himself  to  execute  his  official  trust  with  fidelity ; 
a  copy  of  the  section  of  the  law  chartering  the  bank  committing  to  him 
alone  the  discretion  to  discontinue  the  deposits  therein ;  an  extract  from 
a  letter  of  the  president  of  the  26th  of  June,  promising  not  to  interfere 
with  that  discretion ;  and  an  extract  from  his  exposition  to  the  cabinet 
of  the  18th  instant,  in  which  he  had  stated  that  he  did  not  expect  him 
(Duane)  to  do,  at  his  order  or  dictation,  any  act  which  he  believed  to  be 
illegal,  or  which  his  conscience  condemned.  And  he  also  gave  his 
reasons  for  refusing  to  carry  the  directions  into  effect ;  among  which 
were,  that  the  change,  without  necessity,  was  a  breach  of  faith  ;  that  the 
measure  appeared  vindictive  and  arbitrary  ;  that,  if  the  bank  had  abused 
its  powers,  the  judiciary,  and  in  the  last  resort,  the  representatives  of 
the  people,  were  able  and  willing  to  punish  ;  that  the  latter  had  at  the 
last  session  pronounced  the  deposits  safe ;  that  it  was  hazardous  to  placQ 
them  in  the  local  banks,  which  were  not,  on  an  average,  able  to  pay  in 
specie  one  dollar  in  six  of  their  paper  in  circulation  ;  that  it  would  place 
in  the  hands  of  a  secretary,  dependent  for  office  on  the  executive  will, 
a  power  to  favor  or  punish  those  banks,  and  make  them  political 
machines;  that  he  believed  the  efforts  to  hasten  the  removal  of  the 
deposits,  had  originated  in  schemes  to  promote  selfish  and  factious  pur- 
poses ;  and  that  persons  and  presses  in  the  confidence  and  pay  of  the 
administration  had  attempted  to  intimidate  and  constrain  the  secretary 
to  execute  an  act  in  direct  opposition  to  his  own  solemn  convictions. 

The  refusal  of  secretary  Duane  was  followed,  on  the  23d,  by  his  remo- 
val, and  the  appointment  of  Roger  B.  Taney,  then  attorney-general,  in 
his  place.  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  of  New  York,  was  appointed  to  the 
office  of  attorney-general.  Mr.  Taney,  concurring  with  the  president  in 
his  views  on  the  subject  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  directed  their 
removal  to  the  state  banks  selected  as  the  fiscal  agents  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

This  act  was  the  cause  of  an  unusual  excitement,  and  of  general  dis- 
cussion. That  it  would  be  strongly  reprehended  by  the  opponents  of 
the  administration,  who  were  generally  friendly  to  the  bank,  was  to  have 
been  expected.     But  the  dissatisfaction  was  not  confined  to  that  party. 


REMOVAL    OF  THE   DEPOSITS.  595 

Many  of  the  president's  friends  concurred  in  condemning  the  act,  not 
merely  as  inexpedient  and  unnecessary,  but  as  an  arbitrary  exercise  of 
power ;  others  expressed  their  disapproval  in  more  moderate  terms. 
Of  the  former  class  was  a  writer  in  a  Charleston  paper,  who,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  conduct  of  the  president,  observed  :  "  He  has  usurped  to 
himself  the  right  of  disposing  and  removing,  as  he  pleases,  the  reve- 
nues of  the  country,  and  thus  virtually  of  establishing  banks,  without 
even  the  consent  of  congress,  or  of^ny  other  branch  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment, to  the  whole  of  whose  branches  combined  this  competency  has 
been  so  frequently  denied,  not  only  by  himself,  but  by  many  of  our  most 
able  and  illustrious  statesmen  from  the  time  of  the  immortal  Jefferson." 
Of  the  latter  class  was  Mr.  Ritchie,  the  well  known  editor  of  the  Rich- 
mond Enquirer,  who  said  :  "  If  these  (the  president's)  views  were  not 
conclusive  upon  the  mind  of  the  secretary,  it  appears  to  us  that  the  pre- 
sident ought  to  have  been  content  with  doing  his  duty,  and  leaving  the 
responsibility  where  the  law  had  left  it,  in  the  hands  of  the  secretary. 
The  president  might  have,  in  the  mean  time,  obtained  information  as  to 
the  best  mode  of  depositing  the  public  money  in  the  state  banks.  For 
this  cause  alone  he  should  not  have  removed  the  secretary,  and  appointed 
a  substitute.  *  *  *  ^^Q  doubted  the  policy  of  the  measure  in  rela- 
tion to  the  bank  as  weU  as  to  the  public.  We  also  entertain  doubts 
about  the  power  of  the  president  to  control  the  administration  of  the 
treasury  department  in  this  behalf" 

The  directors  of  the  bank  having  appointed  a  committee  to  whom 
were  referred  the  president's  paper  read  to  the  cabinet  on  the  18th  of 
September,  and  that  of  the  government  directors,  to  which  allusion  has 
just  been  made,  this  committee  made  their  report  to  a  meeting  of  the 
board  of  directors  on  the  3d  of  December,  which  was  adopted,  12  to  3. 
The  report  is  very  long  and  elaborate,  and  designed  as  a  full  vindica- 
tion of  their  course  and  a  refutation  of  the  charges  brought  against  it 
by  its  opponents. 

It  commences  with  an  allusion  to  some  of  the  efforts  made  in  the 
summer  of  1829,  to  effect  the  removal  of  Mr.  Mason  and  the  public 
funds  from  the  branch  at  Portsmouth,  with  the  view  to  satisfy  Mr.  Isaac 
Hill,  who  requested  a  change,  because  "  the  friends  of  Gen.  Jackson 
had  but  too  much  reason  to  complain  of  the  management  of  the  branch 
at  Portsmouth;"  manifesting  thus  early  "  a  combined  effort  to  render 
the  institution  subservient  to  party  purposes."  Hence  it  became  neces- 
sary to  come  to  some  immediate  and  distinct  understanding  of  its  rights 
and  duties.  Extracts  from  the  correspondence  between'  Mr.  Biddle  and 
the  treasury  department  are  given,  in  which  he  maintained,  that  the 
management  of  the  bank  was  committed  to  twenty-five  directors,  who 


696  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

were  responsible  to  congress  alone ;  and  no  executive  officer  from  the 
president  down  had  authority  to  interfere  in  it.  "  These  extracts,"  the 
report  said,  "  revealed  the  whole  secret  of  the  hostility  to  the  bank  of 
those  who,  finding  it  impossible  to  bend  it  to  their  purposes,  had  resolved 
to  break  it." 

The  president  had  said,  that  "  the  money  was  to  be  deposited  in  the 
bank  during  the  continuance  of  its  charter,  unless  the  secretary  of  the 
treasury  should  otherwise  direct ;"  and^  "  unless  the  secretary  first  acted, 
congress  had  no  power  over  the  subject."  He  had  declared  that  "  the 
power  of  the  secretary  over  the  deposits  was  unqualified,"  and  that  he 
did  not  "  require  that  any  member  of  the  cabinet  should  at  his  request, 
order  or  dictation,  perform  any  act  which  he  believed  unlawful,  or  his 
conscience  condemned;"  yet  the  moment  the  secretary  refused  to  do  what 
his  conscience  condemned,  he  was  dismissed  from  office,  and  denounced 
in  the  official  gazette  as  a  "  refractory  subordinate." 

The  report  said,  the  paper  read  to  the  cabinet  not  having  brought  a 
majority  of  its  members  into  his  views,  the  subject  was  postponed,  and 
in  the  mean  time  this  document  was  put  into  the  newspapers,  as  was 
believed,  for  two  reasons :  the  first  was  to  influence  the  members  of  the 
cabinet  by  bringing  to  bear  upon  their  immediate  decision  the  first  pub- 
lic impression  excited  by  that  document ;  and  secondly,  to  afi"ect  the 
approaching  elections  in  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  and  New  Jersey ;  as 
was  indicated  by  the  triumphant  exultation  of  the  Globe  at  the  result 
of  the  elections  in  these  states,  and  by  its  ascribing  the  same  in  part  to 
the  expositions  of  the  corruptions  of  the  bank,  read  by  the  president  to 
the  cabinet. 

The  directors  pronounced  the  removal  "  a  violation  of  the  rights  of 
the  bank  and  of  the  laws  of  the  country."  The  bank  had  paid  a  bonus 
of  $1,500,000,  and  had  agreed  to  render  other  services,  for  the  use  of 
the  government  deposits  ;  and  they  could  not  be  taken  out  but  for  rea- 
sons which  the  secretary  must  lay  before  congress.  The  purpose  of 
giving  this  power  of  removal  was  obviously  to  prevent  loss  to  the  reve- 
nue ;  and  this  seemed  to  have  been  so  considered  by  the  president  him- 
self, when,  in  his  message,  he  suggested  the  inquiry  into  the  mfety  of 
the  public  moneys.  But  even  if  there  were  other  reasons  for  their  remo- 
val, the  secretary  alone  had  the  power  to  remove  them.  They  also 
adverted  to  the  acts  establishing  the  several  departments,  from  which  it 
appeared,  that  the  secretaries  of  state,  war,  and  the  navy,  were  to  exe- 
cute the  orders  of  the  president,  and  make  their  reports  to  him,  and  the 
secretary  of  the  treasury  was  to  report  and  give  information  directly  to 
congress.  Tu  the  charter  of  the  bank,  there  was  not  a  single  power  given 
to  the  president  over  its  administration,  except  in  the  provision  author- 


BANK    INVESTIGATION.  597 

izing  congress  or  the  president  to  order  a  writ  of  sci7'e  facias,  requiring 
the  corporation  to  show  cause  why  the  charter  should  not  be  declared 
roid. 

The  directors  say :  "  The  main  purpose  of  the  president's  manifesto 
appears  to  be,  to  prove  that  the  bank  was  unfriendly  to  his  election ; 
and  he  endeavors  to  trace  this  opposition  to  him  and  his  measures : 

"  1st.  In  the  application  to  congress  for  a  renewal  of  the  charter; 

"  2d.  In  the  extension  of  the  loans  of  the  bank  in  1831  and  1832  ; 

"  3d.  In  the  claim  for  damages  on  the  French  bill ; 

"  4th.  In  the  circulation  of  documents  vindicating  the  bank  from  the 
imputations  he  hald  cast  upon  it." 

In  answering  the  first  of  these  assertions,  the  report  refers  to  the  fact, 
that  the  president  did  not  think  it  too  early  to  agitate  the  question  of 
rechartering  the  bank  more  than  six  years  before  its  charter  was  to  ex- 
pire ;  and  after  having  called  the  attention  of  congress  to  the  subject  in 
three  successive  annual  messages,  the  bank,  having  asked  for  a  renewal 
of  its  charter  only  four  years  before  its  expiration,  was  charged  with  the 
design,  in  this  early  application,  to  influence  the  election. 

In  regard  to  the  extension  of  loans,  designed,  as  the  president  be- 
lieved, "  to  bring  as  large  a  portion  of  the  people  as  possible  under  its 
power  and  influence,"  he  was  in  error,  both  as  to  the  amount  and  the 
motives.  The  sixteen  months  in  which  the  increase  of  loans  was  alleged 
to  have  been  made,  was  from  January  1,  1831,  to  May  1,  1832.  In  the 
year  1831,  the  active  foreign  and  interior  trade  required  unusual  facili- 
ties for  its  operations.  The  bank,  having  received  the  reimbursement  of 
its  loan  to  government,  amounting  to  $8,674,681,  and  having  called  in 
its  funds  in  Europe,  and  employed  its  credit  there,  to  the  amount  of 
$4,000,000 — thus  possessing  additional  means  of  loaning  to  the  amount 
of  nearly  thirteen  millions — had  increased  its  loans  seventeen  millions, 
making  in  fact,  a  mere  increase  of  its  investments  less  than  five  millions, 
of  which  increase  the  new  branch  at  Natchez,  established  within  that 
period,  alone  contributed  nearly  three  millions. 

The  report  says  farther :  "  There  are  several  circumstances  which 
make  this  misstatement  peculiarly  improper.  He  reproaches  the  bank 
with  this  increase,  although  '  the  bank  was  aware  of  the  intention  of  the 
government  to  use  the  public  deposit  as  fast  as  it  accrued,  in  the  payment 
of  the  public  debt.'  Now  the  fact  is,  that  the  public  deposit  was  used, 
as  we  have  just  seen,  in  paying  off  the  public  debt  owned  by  the  bank 
itself;  so  that  instead  of  increasing  its  loans  in  such  a  way  as  to  interfere 
with  the  payment  of  the  public  debt  to  others,  this  very  public  debt  was 
paid  to  the  bank  itself,  and  furnished  the  very  means  of  increasing  the 
loans.     What  makes  it  still  worse  is,  that  this  very  public  debt  was  in 


598  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

fact  paid  to  the  bank  on  the  solicitation  of  tlie  treasury  itself,  before  the 
bank  was  bound  to  receive  it."  -  In  relation  to  this,  the  secretary  wrote 
to  the  bank,  September  29th,  1831,  saying:  "  The  department  fully  ap- 
preciates the  disposition  which  the  board  of  directors  have  manifested  by 
this  arrangement,  to  cooperate  in  the  accomplishment  of  its  desire  for 
the  discharge  of  the  public  debt  as  early  as  the  means  of  the  treasury 
will  permit." 

The  points  of  comparison,  too,  were  said  to  be  fallacious.  It  was  im- 
proper to  compare  May  and  January.  The  southern  crop,  with  all  its 
business,  enlarged  the  spring  operations  of  the  bank.  By  comparing 
January  with  January,  or  May  with  May,  the  increase  would  be  found 
comparatively  small. 

In  regard  to  the  alleged  inability  of  the  bank  to  meet  the  demands  of 
the  government,  and  the  necessity  of  obtaining  a  postponement,  the 
directors  said,  the  truth  was,  the  gavernment  wished  to  make  the  post- 
ponement, but  could  not  without  the  aid  of  the  bank.  Mr.  M'Duffie  and 
Mr.  Cambreleng,  members  of  the  committee  of  investigation  at  Phila- 
delphia, wrote  letters  to  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  dissuading  the 
government  from  making  the  payment.  But  the  commissioners  of  the 
sinking  fund  having  no  authority  to  postpone  the  payment,  as  they 
would  be  obliged  to  pay  the  quarter's  interest  during  the  three  months' 
delay,  the  president  of  the  bank  agreed  to  pay  the  interest,  as  the  money 
would  remain  in  the  hands  of  the  bank.  The  secretary  had  himself  de- 
cided on  the  postponement,  after  he  had  seen  the  recommendation  of 
M'Duffie  and  Cambreleng. 

"  Much  stress,"  they  said,  "  was  laid  on  the  visit  of  the  president  of 
the  bank  to  Washington  while  the  committee  of  investigation  were  in 
Philadelphia.  The  truth  was,  the  letter  of  the  acting  secretary  was  re- 
ceived so  immediately  before  the  period  fixed  for  issuing  the  notice  of 
payment,  that,  if  any  thing  were  to  be  done  at  all,  it  was  to  be  done  only 
by  personal  communication  with  the  secretary,  as  there  was  no  time  for 
correspondence.  The  committee  were  aware  of  his  going,  and  two  of 
its  members  wrote  letters  to  promote  his  object.  Besides,  his  leaving 
the  committee  in  full  possession  of  the  bank  and  all  its  papers,  was  the 
surest  mark  of  his  entire  confidence  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  con- 
cerns of  the  bank  which  they  might  not  examine  at  leisure  during  his  ab- 
sence, and  was  the  best  proof  of  his  confidence  in  them  as  well  as  him- 
self. The  whole  subject  was  before  the  committee  of  investigation  of 
1832  ;  and  that  committee  acknowledged,  as  would  be  seen  from  their 
report,  that  this  postponement  was  not  the  work  of  the  bank." 

Another  evidence  adduced  of  the  bank's  opposition  to  him,  was  its 
claim  for  damages  from  the  non-payment  of  the  bill  drawn  by  our  gov- 


BANK    INVESTIGATION.  599 

eminent  on  that  of  France  for  about  $900,000,  being  the  first  instalment 
of  the  French  indemnity,  and  which  the  bank  had  purchased.  The  pur- 
chase money  was  left  in  the  use  of  the  bank,  being  simply  added  to  the 
treasury  deposit ;  and  yet  the  bank  demanded  fifteen  per  cent,  as 
damages,  when  no  damage  beyond  a  trifling  expense  had  been  sustained, 
Such  a  fiscal  agent  of  the  government  was  not  worthy  of  further  trust. 
To  this  the  directors  reply,  that  the  bank,  in  this  operation,  was  not  the 
fiscal  agent  of  the  government.  The  bank  did  not  wish  to  purchase  the 
bill  at  all,  but  proposed  to  collect  it,  paying  the  money  only  after  it  had 
been  received  by  its  agents  in  France.  It  was  not  true  that  the  money 
was  left  in  the  use  of  the  bank,  and  simply  added  to  the  treasury  de- 
posit. The  sum  was  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  treasurer,  and  the  pro- 
ceeds of  this  identical  bill  had  been  used  by  the  government  for  paying 
its  ordinary  expenses.  And  when  the  bill  was  protested  in  Paris,  the 
agents  of  the  bank  there  came  forward  and  paid  it :  it  had  thus  been 
paid  twice  over ;  so  that  the  disbursements  by  the  bank  on  account  of 
the  bill  had  actually  been  $1,800,000.  It  had  called  on  the  government 
for  the  principal  and  damages  ;  and  the  government  was  bound  on  the 
principles  of  common  honesty  to  pay  the  damages.  It  had  been  the  uni- 
form practice  of  the  government  itself,  when  it  had  purchased  bills  from 
private  citizens  which  had  been  returned  protested,  to  enforce  its  claim 
for  damages. 

All  the  allegations  of  the  president  against  the  bank  were  separately 
considered,  and  explained  or  denied.  There  had  been  no  studied  exclu- 
sion of  government  directors  from  committees.  Nor  had  there  been 
any  "  unusual  remodeling  "  of  committees.  Nor  was  it  true  that  "the 
president  of  the  bank,  by  his  single  will,  originated  and  executed  many 
of  the  most  important  measures,"  &c. 

The  expenditures  during  the  years  1831  and  1832,  under  authority  of 
certain  resolutions,  were  not  $80,000;  they  were  exactly  .$48,278  90, 
as  explained  in  the  report. 

It  was  not  true,  as  charged,  "  that  publications  had  been  prepared 
and  circulated,  containing  the  grossest  invectives  against  the  officers  of 
the  government ;"  or  that  the  president  of  the  bank  had  unlimited  dis- 
cretion to  expend  its  funds,"  in  the  manner  alleged,  "  to  operate  on 
elections  and  secure  a  renewal  of  its  charter."  The  power  actually 
given  which  had  been  exercised,  and  would  continue  to  be  exercised,  was 
for  the  defense  of  the  bank  against  the  calumnies  with  which,  for  four 
years,  the  institution  had  been  pursued. 

The  report  of  the  directors  also  reviews  the  report  of  the  four  "  gov- 
ernment directors;"  but  we  may  not  extend  this  reply. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  next  session  of  congress  in  December, 


600  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

1833,  secretary  Taney  made  a  long  report  to  congress,  giving  his  reasons 
for  removino-  the  deposits.  His  reasons  were  founded  mainly  upon  the 
statements  and  allegations  of  the  president  and  government  directors,  as 
given  in  preceding  pages. 


CHAPTER  XLIX. 


TIONS,    AND     THE     mESIDENT  S    PROTEST. POST-OFFICE    INVESTIGATION. 

The  removal  of  the  deposits  took  place  the  1st  of  October,  1833  ;  or, 
strictly  speaking,  the  public  moneys  were  no  longer  deposited  in  the  bank 
of  the  United  States ;  those  remaining  therein,  being  only  drawn  out  as 
they  were  wanted  by  the  government.  The  loans  of  the  bank  were  cur- 
tailed; and  a  severe  money  pressure  soon  pervaded  the  country.  Busi- 
ness of  most  kinds  was  greatly  depressed.  Bills  of  state  banks  depre- 
ciated in  value  on  account  of  the  demand  for  money ;  and  banks  were 
compelled  to  reduce  their  discounts.  Public  meetings  were  held  in 
many  places,  and  memorials  to  congress  were  prepared,  praying  for  a 
return  of  the  deposits  to  the  bank  of  the  United  States.  The  memorial 
of  the  Philadelphia  chamber  of  commerce,  in  enumerating  the  effects  of 
this  measure,  mentioned  the  decline  in  the  price  of  public  stocks  from 
10  to  30  per  cent.;  the  depression  of  the  foreign  and  domestic  ex- 
changes ;  the  fall  in  value  of  all  the  principal  articles  of  domestic  pro- 
dace;  the  impossibility  of  borrowing  on  mortgage  as  formerly,  even  at 
the  highest  legal  rates  of  interest ;  the  ruinous  discount  on  good  mercan- 
tile paper,  which  varied  from  12  to  18  per  cent. ;  the  difficulty  of  obtaining 
cash  advances  on  produce  or  merchandise  ;  the  discharge  of  laborers,  and 
the  suspension  of  mechanical  and  manufacturing  business ;  the  decline 
in  the  value  of  real  estate,  &c. 

While  the  friends  of  the  bank  regarded  this  state  of  things  as  a  natural 
and  necessary  consequence  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  its  opponents 
considered  the  scarcity  of  money  as  only  artificial,  and  attributed  the 
pressure  to  the  pa^nic  produced  by  the  bank  and  its  friends  for  political 
purposes,  or  with  a  view  to  the  renewal  of  its  charter.  Its  discounts, 
they  said,  had  been  unnecessarily  reduced,  with  a  design  to  embarrass 
the  state  banks,  which  had  been  compelled  to  contract  their  issues. 

At  no  former  stage  of  the  bank  controversy  was  there  so  intense  an 
excitement  on  this  question.     This  act  of  the  president  alineated  many 


CONTINUATION    OF    THE   BANK    AND    DEPOSIT    QUESTION.  601 

of  his  former  supporters.  Meetings  in  many  places  were  called,  irrespec 
tive  of  party,  and  numerously  attended  by  the  friends  of  the  administra- 
tion ;  and  resolutions  unanimously  adopted,  condemning  the  removal  of 
the  deposits.  Similar  resolutions  were  also  passed  by  the  legislatures 
of  several  of  the  states.  Those  adopted  by  the  Virginia  house  of  dele- 
gates, while  they  reiterated  the  opinion  of  the  general  assembly  against 
the  power  of  congress  to  establish  a  bank,  pronounced  the  act  of  the 
president  in  exerting  a  control  over  the  federal  revenue,  by  causing  its 
removal,  on  his  own  responsibility,  from  the  bank,  where  it  had  been 
deposited  under  the  authority  of  congress,  "  an  unauthorized  assumption 
and  dangerous  exercise  of  executive  power ;"  and  instructed  their  sena- 
tors, and  requested  their  representatives,  in  congress,  to  vindicate  the 
constitution,  and  redress  the  evils  thus  occasioned.  The  legislatures  of 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Ohio  and  Tennessee,  on  the  other  hand  passed 
resolutions  approving  the  course  of  the  president. 

The  reality  of  the  scarcity  of  money  was  a  fact  too  palpable  to  be 
disputed;  the  great  point  in  controversy  was  the  cause.  The  aggregate 
loans  of  the  bank,  on  the  1st  of  January,  1833,  were  $61,695,613,  when 
it  had  in  deposit,  $20,271,221.  January  1st,  1834,  three  months  after 
the  deposits  were  removed,  the  amount  of  loans  was  $54,911,461,  and 
of  deposits,  $10,965,375  ;  showing  the  reduction  of  loans  to  have  been 
$2,521,393  less  than  the  reduction  of  deposits,  during  the  year. 

One  of  the  reasons  alleged  for  the  curtailment  of  its  operations,  was 
the  apprehension  of  an  attempt,  on  the  part  of  the  government,  to  em- 
barrass it.  Mr.  Kendall,  the  government  agent,  in  a  letter  to  a  New 
York  editor,  a  few  days  after  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  spoke  of  the 
effects  of  a  sudden  withdrawal  of  the  public  moneys,  (then  nearly  ten 
millions,)  from  the  bank,  and  added :  "  Yes,  sir,  this  boasting  giant  is 
but  a  reptile  beneath  the  feet  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  which  he 
can  crush  at  will.  It  exists  by  his  forbearance,  and  will,  for  the  next 
forty  days ;  and  great  forbearance  will  it  require  to  save  it  from  de- 
struction." 

A  few  weeks  after,  the  bank  was  surprised  by  the  presentation  of  a 
number  of  large  drafts,  one  of  $100,000  at  the  branch  in  Baltimore,  and 
two  others,  one  of  $100,000,  and  another  of  $500,000,  at  the  bank  in 
Philadelphia,  all  of  which  were  paid.  Three  others,  of  $500,000  each, 
had  been  drawn  upon  the  branch  in  New  York,  These  drafts  were  all 
in  favor  of  the  state  banks  in  these  places  selected  to  receive  the  deposits. 
It  had  been  the  uniform  practice  of  the  treasury  to  transmit  to  the  bank 
a  weekly  statement  of  drafts  to  be  made  upon  it ;  but  these  large  sums 
were  drawn  for  without  the  usual  previous  notice.  The  belief  that  the 
unexpected  demand  of  these  secret  drafts  was  designed  to  embarrass  the 


602  THE    AMERICAN    STA1ESMAN. 

bank,  was  strengthened  by  certain  articles  in  the  official  paper,  the 
Globe,  in  one  of  which,  alluding  to  the  "  runs  upon  Mr.  Biddle's  bank," 
the  editor  said  :  "  In  more  ways  than  one  can  the  people  make  their 
power  manifest ;  and  the  trepidation  displayed  in  the  bank  hive  when 
the  people,  in  a  portion  of  Kentucky,  by  a  spontaneous  movement,  began 
last  year  to  cash  its  paper,  has  taught  us  how  to  make  war  with  effect, 
whenever  the  conduct  of  the  bank  shall  make  it  necessary  or  expedient." 

The  23d  congress  met  on  the  3d  of  December,  1833  ;  and  some  hopes 
were  entertained  that  measures  would  be  adopted  to  mitigate  the  dis- 
tress which  pervaded  the  whole  union,  and  affected  almost  every  branch 
of  business.  During  the  winter  and  spring  of  1834,  many  banks  were 
compelled  to  stop  payment.  A  large  number  of  memorials  were  sent  in 
to  congress,  praying  for  a  restoration  of  the  deposits  to  the  bank  of  the 
United  States.  Numerous  remonstrances  also  were  presented  against 
their  return  to  that  institution.  The  state  of  parties  in  congress  at  this 
time  was  such  as  to  forbid  the  adoption  of  the  measure  prayed  for,  or  of 
any  other  which  was  designed  to  afford  relief. 

In  the  senate,  Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  friends  now  acting  with  the  oppo- 
sition, the  administration  party  was  in  the  minority.  In  the  house, 
parties  were  subdivided  into  the  Jackson  party  proper ;  the  Jackson 
Van  Buren  party  ;  the  Jackson  anti-Yan  Buren  party  ;  the  anti-Jack- 
son party  ;  the  nullifying  anti- Jackson  party ;  and  the  anti-masonic  and 
anti-Jackson  party.  The  three  first  named  generally  acting  together, 
gave  the  administration  a  considerable  majority,  as  appeared  from  the 
vote  in  the  choice  of  speaker ;  Andrew  Stevenson,  of  Virginia,  being 
reelected  by  a  vote  of  142  to  66,  and  9  blanks. 

In  the  senate,  the  practice  which  had  existed  in  that  body  since  1828, 
of  the  appointment  of  committees  by  the  president  of  the  senate,  was 
changed.     Their  appointment  by  the  senate  itself  was  reestablished. 

The  removal  of  the  deposits  occupied  a  large  share  of  the  attention  of 
congress  at  this  session.  It  was  brought  to  their  -consideration,  both 
by  the  message  of  the  president,  and  the  report  of  the  secretary  of  the 
treasury  communicating  his  reasons  for  the  removal.  It  was  discussed 
on  a  great  variety  of  motions,  resolutions,  calls  for  information,  &c. 

In  the  house,  on  the  motion  to  refer  the  secretary's  report  to  the 
committee  of  ways  and  means,  Mr.  M'Duffie  moved  to  instruct  the 
committee  "  to  report  a  resolution,  providing  that  the  public  revenue 
hereafter  collected  shall  be  deposited  in  the  bank  of  the  United  States, 
in  compliance  with  the  public  faith,  pledged  by  the  charter  of  the  said 
bank."  He  supported  his  motion  by  a  long  speech,  in  which  he  re- 
viewed the  conduct  of  the  president  and  secretary  in  removing  the 
deposits,  alleging  that  the  author  of  the  act  was  the  president,  who  had 


CONTINUATION    OF    THE    BANK    A^D    DEPOSIT    QUESTION.  603 

no  power  over  the  deposits.  He  spoke  of  the  distress  produced  by  that 
measure,  and  he  vindicated  the  bank  from  the  numerous  charges  pre- 
ferred against  it  by  the  president  and  secretary. 

He  was  replied  to  by  Mr.  Polk,  at  great  length,  in  defense  of  the 
president,  and  in  reprehending  the  conduct  of  the  bank.  Mr.  P.  main- 
tained that  the  president  had  power  over  the  heads  of  the  departments. 
Being  responsible  to  the  people  for  the  faithful  execution  of  the  laws, 
he  must  have  the  power  to  control  the  conduct  of  his  assistants,  not 
excepting  the  secretary  of  the  treasury.  It  would  not  be  pretended 
that  congress  could  either  appoint  or  remove  that  officer ;  they  could 
reach  him  only  by  the  tedious  process  of  impeachment.  Mr.  P. 
referred  to  Mr.  Madison  and  his  cotemporaries  to  prove  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  president  for  the  executive  department,  and  the  conse- 
quent power  of  removal.  He  also  referred  to  the  act  of  secretary 
Crawford,  in  1817,  who  informed  congress  that  he  had  made  deposits 
in  local  banks,  to  aid  them  in  resuming  specie  payments,  and  for  other 
purposes. 

Mr.  Polk  considered  the  several  allegations  against  the  bank  of  mis- 
conduct, and  endeavored  to  show  that  they  were  well  founded;  that 
thjere  was  no  necessity  for  the  system  of  curtailment  adopted  by  the 
bank.  The  secretary  had  stated  in  his  report,  and  the  bank  returns 
corroborated  the  statement,  that  from  August  1,  to  October  1,  1833, 
the  bank  had  curtailed  its  discounts  upwards  of  $4,000,000,  while  its 
means  of  discounting  had  been  increased  by  an  increase  of  deposits. 
He  said  the  bank  had  so  timed  its  reduction  as  to  produce  a  pressure 
about  the  time  of  the  meeting  of  congress,  to  induce  the  state  banks  to 
appeal  to  congress  for  a  recharter  of  the  bank  of  the  United  States. 
The  mere  transfer  of  the  public  money  could  not  have  produced  the 
pressure  ;  the  money  was  still  in  the  country.  Nor  must  the  pressure 
be  charged  to  the  local  banks ;  their  curtailments  had  become  necessary 
to  protect  themselves  from  the  effect  of  the  excessive  reductions  by  the 
bank  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Polk,  in  noticing  the  reasons  assigned  for  the  large  increase  of 
loans  by  the  bank  from  Jan.  1,  1831,  to  May  1,  1832,  said,  if  it  had 
become  necessary,  in  consequence  of  the  unusually  large  iijiportations, 
for  the  bank  to  extend  its  business,  to  enable  the  merchants  to  sustain 
themselves  and  the  credit  of  the  country,  it  was  equally  incumbent  on 
the  bank  to  extend  its  accommodations  to  the  importing  merchants 
in  1833,  when  the  importations  exceeded  those  of  1831,  by  eight  mil- 
lions. But  it  was  apparent  that  the  course  of  the  bank  was  governed 
by  political  considerations. 

Against  the  statement  of  the  president  of  the  bank,  that  the  post- 


604  ,:-:-        ■:     THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ponement  of  the  payment  of  the  three  per  cent,  stocks  was  desired  by 
the  government  instead  of  the  bank,  Mr.'  P.  adduced  the  testimony 
of  two  of  the  directors,  and  of  Mr.  Dickens,  chief  clerk  of  the  treasury, 
from  whose  statements  it  appears,  that  "  the  arrangement  was  made  by 
the  government,  at  the  solicitation  of  the  bank."  And  he  quoted  from 
the  report  of  the  committee  of  ways  and  means  of  the  preceding  session, 
their  opinion  "that  in  the  arrangement  made  by  the  agent  in  England  for 
the  purchase  of  the  three  per  cent,  stock,  and  the  detention  of  the  cer- 
tificates, (which  measure  was  afterwards  disclaimed  by  the  bank,)  the 
institution  exceeded  its  legitimate  authority." 

The  expenditures  for  printing  were  also  examined,  and  evidence  was 
presented  to  convict  the  president  of  the  bank  of  misstatements,  and  of 
a  corrupt  expenditure  of  money.  Mr.  P.  read  extracts  from  some  of 
the  pamphlets  paid  for  by  the  bank,  which,  he  thought,  did  not  appear 
to  have  been  designed  for  the  defense  of  the  bank,  as  had  been  pre- 
tended. 

Mr.  Binney,  of  Pennsylvania,  replied  to  Mr.  Polk;  but  on  two 
points  only  can  we  present  his  arguments.  The  first  is,  the  establish- 
ment of  the  treasury  department,  which  involved  the  question  of  the 
power  of  the  president  to  control  its  afi"airs.  The  act  of  1789  establish- 
ing the  state  department,  then  called  "  department  of  foreign  affairs," 
was  entitled,  "  An  act  for  establishing  an  executive  department,"  «fec. ; 
and  the  secretary  was  to  execute  the  duties  enjoined  on  and  intrusted  to 
him  by  the  president.  So  the  departments  of  war  and  the  navy  were 
denominated  executive  departments,  in  the  titles  of  the  acts  establishing 
them.  But  in  the  act  for  establishing  the  treasury  department,  the 
denomination  of  "executive"  was  omitted,  not  by  accident,  but  by 
design,  as  the  word  was  in  the  title  of  the  bill  when  reported  by  the 
committee.  And  what  was  more  material,  after  enumerating  the  duties 
devolved  upon  him  in  relation  to  the  finances,  the  act  farther  requires 
him  to  make  report  to  either  branch  of  the  legislature :  in  all  of  which, 
the  name  of  the  president  was  not  even  mentioned.  Hence,  so  far  as 
the  acts  of  the  secretary  related  to  the  custody  and  security  of  the 
public  moneys,  his  department  was  not  a  presidential  department. 
"  To  have  placed  the  custody  of  the  public  treasury  within  the  execu- 
tive department,  would  have  been  a  constitutional  incongruity,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  mischiefs  of  placing  the  power  of  the  sword  and  the 
purse  in  the  same  hand.  It  would  have  marred  the  harmony  and  sim- 
plicity of  the  whole  scheme  of  the  constitution,  by  leaving  to  congress 
the  duty  of  paying  the  debts  and  providing  for  the  common  defense  and 
welfare,  while  the  money  collected  for  these  objects  was  not  under  their 
control,  but  in  the  hands  of  a  different  department."     Mr.  B.  did  not 


clay's  resolut:x)ns.  605 

adopt  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Polk,  that  because  the  president  had  the 
power  of  removal,  he  had  the  right  to  direct  the  secretary  of  the  trea- 
sury in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  of  every  description. 

The  other  point  in  the  speech  of  Mr.  B.  which  it  proposed  to  present, 
is  his  vindication  of  the  bank  in  diminishing  its  discounts.  It  had  been 
said  that  the  ability  of  the  bank  to  discount  had  been  increased  by  the 
receipt  of  $4,000,000  of  the  public  moneys  in  August  and  September. 
But  the  inference  was  erroneous.  The  bank  not  only  had  debtors,  but 
was  herself  a  debtor  for  private,  as  well  as  public  deposits,  and  for  her 
notes  in  circulation  and  balances  due  other  banks ;  and  when  she  called 
on  her  debtors  for  a  part  of  her  demands,,  these  very  persons  might  be 
her  creditors  by  deposit,  or  might  borrow  from  such  as  were,  and  might 
call  on  the  bank  for  what  she  owed  them.  And  it  appeared,  that  during 
these  two  months,  the  private  deposits  had  actually  fallen  more  than  two 
millions. 

Said  Mr.  Binney :  "  Although  the  removal  of  the  deposits  did  not 
take  place  until  the  1st  of  October,  the  intention  to  remove  them  was 
fully  known  in  July.  The  agency  to  negotiate  with  the  state  banks  was 
announced  in  the  Globe  of  the  25th  of  July ;  and  whatever  the  public 
might  think,  it  was  not  for  the  bank  to  act  in  any  other  faith  than  that 
the  purpose  would  be  immediately  and  relentlessly  executed.  It  was 
the  clear  duty  of  the  board  to  prepare  itself  without  a  moment's  delay. 
The  position  of  the  bank  was  every  where  known  to  the  treasury  depart- 
ment by  the  weekly  statements.  Her  widely  dispersed  branches  were  to 
be  strengthened  wherever  they  required  it.  Her  circulation  was  large, 
and  she  was  in  the  practice  of  assisting  it  by  an  almost  universal  pay- 
ment at  all  points,  without  regard  to  the  tenor  of  the  notes.  The  house 
may  judge  of  the  extent  of  the  accommodation  which  the  bank  was  in 
the  practice  of  giving,  by  the  thirty-nine  millions  of  these  notes  paid 
out  of  place  in  the  year  1832.  They  may  know  it  farther,  Dy  the  fact, 
that  of  these  branch  notes,  $1,540,000  were  paid  at  the  bank  in  Philadel- 
phia, during  the  very  months  of  August  and  September,  1833.  This 
circulation  was  to  be  sustained  and  increased,  to  be  still  more  facilitated, 
as  it  since  has  been,  to  keep  the  people  and  the  bank  from  feeling  the 
consequences  of  the  measure.  All  this  required  that  the  bank  should 
not  sleep  upon  her  post.  The  least  dishonor  suffered  by  that  bank, 
would  have  produced  universal  disorder  in  the  country." 

In  the  senate,  on  the  5th  of  December,  Mr.  Clay  offered  a  resolution, 
requesting  the  president  to  inform  the  senate  whether  the  paper  read  to 
the  cabinet  on  the  18th  of  September,  and  alleged  to  have  been  pub- 
lished by  his  authority,  was  genuine  or  not ;  and  if  genuine,  to  cause  a 
copy  of  it  to  be  laid  before  the  senate.     The  resolution  was  adopted  on 


606  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  1 1  th,  by  a  vote  of  23  to  1 8.  The  call  was  answered  the  next  day 
by  a  message,  questioning  the  constitutional  right  of  the  senate  to 
require  of  him,  a  coordinate  and  independent  branch  of  the  government, 
an  account  of  any  communication  made  to  the  heads  of  the  departments 
acting  as  a  cabinet  council,  and  adding  as  follows :  "  Feeling  my  respon- 
'sibility  to  the  American  people,  I  am  willing,  upon  all  occasions,  to  ex- 
plain the  grounds  of  my  conduct;  and  to  give  to  either  branch  of  the 
legislature  any  information  in  my  possession  that  may  be  useful  in  the 
execution  of  the  appropriate  duties  confided  to  them.  Knowing  the  con- 
stitutional rights  of  the  senate,  I  shall  be  the  last  man,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, to  interfere  with  them.  Knowing  those  of  the  executive,  I 
shall,  at  all  times,  endeavor  to  maintain  them,  agreeably  to  the  provisions 
of  the  constitution,  and  the  solemn  oath  I  have  taken  to  support  and 
defend  it.  I  am  constrained,  therefore,  by  a  proper  sense  of  my  own 
self-respect,  and  by  the  rights  secured  by  the  constitution  to  the  execu- 
tive branch  of  the  government,,  to  decline  a  compliance  with  your 
request." 

'  On  the  26th  of  December,  Mr.  Clay  offered  two  resolutions  :  the  first, 
declaring  the  dismissal  of  the  late  secretary  because  he  would  not,  con- 
trary to  his  sense  of  duty,  remove  the  public  moneys,  in  conformity  with 
the  president's  opinion,  and  the  appointment  of  another  to  do  the  act,  to 
be  an  exercise  of  a  power  over  the  treasury  not  granted  to  him  by  the 
constitution  and  laws,  and  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  people. 
Second,  that  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  secretary  for  the  removal,  were 
unsatisfactory  and  insufiicient. 

Mr.  Clay  supported  these  resolutions  in  a  speech  of  two  days.  The 
theme,  as  will  be  readily  imagined,  was  well  adapted  to  elicit  one  of 
those  "  splendid  efforts"  for  which  that  gentleman  was  celebrated,  and 
which,  how  much  soever  they  might  come  short  of  convincing,  could  not 
fail  of  charmiDg  his  auditory.  He  was  several  times  interrupted  by  ap- 
plause from  the  galleries  which  occasioned  the  interference  of  the  vice- 
president.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  speech,  it  became  necessary  to 
order  the  galleries  cleared  to  enforce  the  respect  due  to  the  senate. 

Mr.  Benton  replied  to  Mr.  Clay  on  four  successive  days,  in  a  speech 
characteristic  of  its  distinguished  author,  a  large  portion  of  it  consisting 
of  documentary  and  historical  extracts  to  fortify  his  positions.  He  con- 
cluded his  speech  with  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  second  resolution  and 
insert,  "  That  Nicholas  Biddle,  president  of  the  bank  of  the  United 

States,  ^nd ,  be  summoned  to  appear  at  the  bar  of  the  senate,  on 

the day  of ,  then  and  there  to  be  examined  on  oath,  touch- 
ing the  causes  of  the  late  large  curtailment  of  debts  due  to  the  bank  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  manner  of  conducting  the  said  curtailment  • 


CLAY  S    RESOLUTIONS,    AND    THE    PRESIDENT'S    PROTEST.  607 

also  to  be  then  and  there  examined  touching  the  application  of  the  moneys 
of  the  bank  to  electioneering  and  political  objects." 

The  debate  was  continued  by  Messrs.  Southard,  Calhoun,  Ewing 
Preston,  Sprague,  Frelinghuysen,  and  Tyler,  in  favor  of  Mr.  Clay's  reso- 
lutions ;  and  by  Messrs.  Shepley,  Rives,  Forsyth,  Grundy,  Wilkins,  Hill, 
Tallmadge  and  Wright,  in  opposition.  With  few  exceptions,  the 
speeches  were  of  unusual  length.  The  discussion  was  protracted  until 
the  28th  of  March,  during  a  period  of  more  than  three  months.  It  was 
interspersed,  however,  with  debates  upon  sundry  other  questions,  some 
of  which  were  incidental  to,  or  growing  out  of,  the  principal  one,  the 
removal  of  the  deposits.  Among  these  questions  were  numerous  memo- 
rials from  different  parts  of  the  union ;  resolutions  and  proceedings  of 
state  legislatures  ;  the  public  distress,  &c. 

On  the  5  th  of  February,  Mr.  Webster,  from  the  committee  of  finance, 
to  whom  had  been  referred  the  secretary's  report  on  the  removal  of  the 
deposits,  and  the  second  of  the  two  resolutions  of  Mr.  Clay,  made  a 
report  which  recommended  the  adoption  of  that  resolution.  At  the 
close  of  the  debate  on  this  resolution,  (March  28,)  the  question  was  taken 
upon  its  adoption,  and  decided  in  the  afiirmative  :  ayes,  28  ;  noes,  18. 

Mr.  Clay,  then,  at  the  instance  of  some  of  his  friends,  modified  his 
other  resolution,  so  as  to  read  as  follows :  "  Resolved,  That  the  presi- 
dent, in  the  late  executive  proceedings  in  relation  to  the  public  revenue, 
has  assumed  upon  himself  authority  and  power  not  conferred  by  the 
constitution  and  laws,  but  in  derogation  of  both,"  The  resolution  was 
agreed  to  :  ayes,  26  ;  noes,  20. 

The  passage  of  this  resolution,  which  took  place  on  the  28th  of  March, 
was  followed,  on  the  15th  of  April,  by  a  message  from  the  president, 
protesting  against  this  act  of  the  senate.  He  pronounced  the  resolution, 
in  substance,  an  impeachment  of  the  president,  contrary  to  the  form 
prescribed  by  the  constitution.  It  abstained  from  averring  in  which  of 
his  proceedings  the  president  had  assumed  unauthorized  power.  It  was 
too  general  and  indefinite  to  be  easily  repelled,  yet  sufficiently  precise  to 
bring  into  discredit  the  conduct  and  motives  of  the  executive.  And  if 
this  act  of  the  senate,  said  the  president,  "  shall  be  approved  and  sus- 
tained by  an  intelligent  people,  then  will  that  great  contest  with  arbi- 
trary power,  which  had  established  in  statutes,  in  bills  of  rights,  in  sacred 
charters,  and  in  constitutions  of  government,  the  right  of  every  citizen 
to  a  notice  before  trial,  to  a  hearing  before  conviction,  and  an  impartial 
tribunal  for  deciding  on  the  charge,  liave  been  waged  in  vain." 

He  referred  to  the  debate  in  the  congress  of  1789,  on  the  establish- 
ment of  the  department  of  foreign  affairs,  in  which  the  motion  to  strike 
but  the  clause  declaring  the  secretary  "to  be  removable  by  the  presi- 


608  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

dent, "  was  decided  in  the  negative.  This  debate,  he  said,  covered  the 
whole  ground,  including  the  treasury  department.  He  adverted  to  the 
fact,  that  four  of  the  senators  who  had  voted  for  the  resolution,  were 
from  states  whose  legislatures  had  approved  the  course  of  the  president 
and  the  secretary  in  relation  to  the  bank,  to  wit :  one  from  Maine,  the 
two  from  New  Jersey,  and  one  from  Ohio. 

After  having  stated  the  objects  and  reasons  which  impelled  him  to 
make  this  communication,  he  says:  "  I  do  hereby  solemnly  protest 
against  the  aforementioned  proceedings  of  the  senate,  as  unauthorized 
by  the  constitution ;  contrary  to  its  spirit  and  to  several  of  its  express 
provisions ;  subversive  of  that  distribution  of  the  powers  of  government 
which  it  has  ordained  and  established ;  .  .  .  and  calculated,  by  their 
immediate  and  collateral  effects,  by  their  character  and  tendency,  to 
concentrate  in  the  hands  of  a  body  not  directly  amenable  to  the  people, 
a  degree  of  influence  and  power  dangerous  to  their  liberties,  and  fatal 
to  the  constitution  of  their  choice."  And  after  referring  to  his  services 
in  the  two  wars  in  which  liberty  was  purchased  and  defended,  to  shield 
him  from  the  imputation  upon  his  private  as  well  as  public  character, 
which  was  contained  in  this  resolution  of  the  senate  which  must  stand 
forever  on  their  journals,  he  concludes :  ''  To  the  end  that  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  senate  may  not  be  hereafter  drawn  into  precedent,  and  to  the 
end,  also,  that  my  motives  and  views  in  the  executive  proceeding 
denounced  in  that  resolution  may  be  known  to  my  fellow-citizens,  to  the 
world,  and  to  all  posterity,  I  respectfully  request  that  this  message  and 
protest  may  be  entered  at  length  on  the  journals  of  the  senate." 

Immediately  after  the  protest  W9S  read,  Mr.  Poindexter  rose,  as  he 
said,  "  to  enter  his  solemn  protest  against  the  reception  of  this  paper, 
and  to  submit  a  motion  that  it  be  not  received;"  which  motion  at  the 
conclusion  of  his  remarks,  he  accordingly  made.  This  was  the  com- 
mencement of  a  highly  interesting  and  animating,  though  somewhat 
acrimonious  debate,  which  continued  until  the  7th  of  May.  Those  who 
farther  participated  in  the  debate  were,  Messrs.  Sprague,  Frelinghuysen, 
Southard,  Leigh,  Ewing,  Bibb,  Clay,  Calhoun,  Preston,  and  Webster, 
in  favor  of  the  motion  of  Mr.  Poindexter ;  and  Messrs.  Benton,  King, 
Kane,  Grundy,  Wright,  and  Forsyth,  in  opposition. 

After  the  debate  had  proceeded  a  few  days,  an  explanatory  message 
was  received  from  the  president,  designed  to  prevent  a  misconstruction 
of  his  former  message  into  an  ** intention  to^deny  the  power  and  right 
of  the  legislative  department  to  provide  by  law  for  the  custody,  safe- 
keeping, and  disposition  of  the  public  money  and  property  of  the  United 
States."  Among  the  passages  in  the  first  message  liable  to  the  construc- 
tion apprehended  by  the  president,  and  to  which  senators  had  taken 


CLAY  S  RESOLUTIONS,  AND  THE  PRESIDENT'S  PROTEST.  609 

exceptions,  with  the   silent  acquiescence  on  the  part  of  the  executive 
department,  were  the  following : 

"  The  custody  of  the  public  property,  under  such  regulations  i^s  may 
be  prescribed  by  legislative  authority,  has  always  been  considered  an 
appropriate  function  of  the  executive  department,  in  this  and  all  other 
governments.  *  *  *  TJ^e  superintendents  and  keepers  of  the  whole 
are  appointed  by  the  president,  and  removable  at  his  willy  Public 
money  is  but  a  species  of  public  property.  *  #  #  j^q  officer  can 
be  created  by  congress  for  the  purpose  of  taking  charge  of  it,  whose 
appointment  would  not,  by  the  constitution,  at  once  devolve  on  the  pre- 
sident, and  who  would  not  be  responsible  to  him  for  the  faithful  perform- 
ance of  his  duties.  *  *  *  Were  the  congress  to  assume,  with  or 
without  legislative  act,  the  power  of  appointing  officers,  independently 
of  the  president,  to  take  the  charge  and  custody  of  the  public  property 
contained  in  the  military  and  naval  arsenals,  magazines  and  store-houses, 
it  is  believed  such  an  act  would  be  regarded  as  a  palpable  usurpation  of 
executive  power,  subversive  of  the  form,  as  well  as  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  our  government.  But  where  is  the  difference  of  principle, 
whether  public  property  be  in  the  form  of  arms,  munitions  of  war,  and 
supplies,  in  gold  and  silver,  or  bank  notes  ?" 

Mr.  Poindexter  moved  that  this  (the  last)  message  also  be  not  received, 
and  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  move  certain  resolutions  modifying 
his  resolution  then  under  consideration. 

It  was  objected  to  receiving  the  protest,  that  it  was  extra-official,  not 
coming  within  the  rule  prescribed  in  the  constitution  regulating  inter- 
course between  the  president  and  congress ;  that  it  was  vindictive  and 
calumnious ;  that  it  was  an  unauthorized  executive  interference  with  the 
legislative  action  of  the  senate;  that  it  falsely  assumed  the  declaration 
of  the  senate  to  be  a  criminal  procedure  against  him ;  that  no  such  paper 
had  ever  been  presented  to  either  house  of  congress ;  that  it  was  intended 
as  a  popular  appeal  to  the  people,  and  to  make  the  senate  itself  the  medi- 
um through  which  to  promulgate  his  unfounded  charges  against  that  body. 

It  was  argued  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  senate  had  condemned  the 
president,  and  would  not  allow  him  to  be  heard  in  his  defense ;  that  he 
had  respectfully  requested  that  his  defense  might  be  entered  upon  the 
journals  of  the  body  that  had  condemned  him  ;  that  the  resolution  of 
the  senate  was  of  an  impeaching  character  and  foreign  to  all  legislation, 
as  was  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  was  not  a  joint  resolution  requiring 
the  action  of  the  house  of  representatives.  As  a  precedent  for  the  pro- 
test, a  case  was  cited  which  had  occurred  under  Washington's  adminis- 
tration. The  senate  had  rejected  a  nomination ;  Gen.  Washington  felt 
aggrieved,  and,  on  a  subsequent  day,  sent  in  the  name  of  another  indi- 

39 


610  THE    AMERICAN    STAIESMAN. 

vidual,  with  a  message  complaining  of  the  rejection  of  the  former,  and 
assigning  his  reasons  for  having  nominated  him. 

The  debate  on  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Poindexter  closed  on  the  7th  of 
May,  when  they  were  adopted:  ayes,  27;  noes,  16.  The  resolutions 
were  agreed  to  in  the  following  form : 

^^  Resolved,  That  the  protest  communicated  to  the  senate  on  17th 
instant,  (April,)  by  the  president  of  the  United  States,  asserts  powers 
as  belonging  to  the  president,  which  are  inconsistent  with  the  just  authority 
of  the  two  houses  of  congress,  and  inconsistent  with  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

"  Resolved,  That  while  the  senate  is,  and  ever  will  be,  ready  to  receive 
from  the  president  all  such  messages  and  communications  as  the  consti- 
tution and  laws,  and  the  usual  course  of  business  authorize  him  to 
transmit  to  it ;  yet  it  can  not  recognize  any  right  in  him  to  make  a  formal 
protest  against  votes  and  proceedings  of  the  senate,  declaring  such  votes 
and  proceedings  to  be  illegal  and  unconstitutional,  and  requesting  the 
senate  to  enter  such  protest  on  its  journals. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  aforesaid  protest  is  a  breach  of  the  privileges  of 
the  senate,  and  that  it  be  not  entered  on  the  journal. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  president  of  the  United  States  has  no  right  to 
send  a  protest  to  the  senate  against  any  of  its  proceedings." 

The  material  point  in  this  controversy  about  the  removal  of  the 
deposits,  was  the  power  claimed  by  and  for  the  president  over  the  custody 
of  the  public  moneys;  for,  although  the  removal  was  made  by  order  of 
the  secretary,  the  "  responsibility  was  assumed  "  by  the  president,  who 
acknowledged  the  act  as  his  own.  The  right  of  interference  on  his  part 
was  defended  on  the  ground,  first,  that  the  treasury  department  was  an 
executive  department,  designed,  as  were  the  other  departments,  to  aid 
the  executive  in  his  constitutional  duty,  "  to  see  that  the  laws  are  faith- 
fully executed ;  "  and  secondly,  that  under  the  power  of  appointment 
and  removal,  possessed  by  the  president,  he  could  displace  any  executive 
officer  who  would  not  cooperate  with  him  in  the  execution  of  the  laws. 

It  was  contended,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  power  here  asserted, 
gave  the  president  entire  control  of  the  treasury — a  power  never  con- 
templated by  the  act  establishing  that  department.  That  act  was 
designed  to  make  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  so  far  as  his  duties 
related  to  the  public  moneys,  directly  responsible  to  congress.  Yet  the 
president  expressly  declares  :  "  Congress  can  not  take  out  of  the  hands 
of  the  executive  department  the  custody  of  the  public  property  or 
money,  without  an  assumption  of  executive  power."  Exercising  the 
power  of  removal  and  appointment  at  pleasure,  and  if  necessary,  dispens- 
ing with  the  confirmations  of  the  senate  to  his  appointments,  by  appoint- 


REPORTS    OF    COMMITTEES.  611 

ing  and  reappointing  in  the  recess,  as  in  a  certain  instance  be  had  done, 
he  could  evade  any  provision  which  congress  might  make  for  the  custody 
and  disposition  of  the  public  money,  and  the  union  of  the  purse  and  the 
sword  in  the  hands  of  the  executive  would  be  complete.  [Appendix, 
Note  H.] 

Several  reports  and  counter-reports,  in  relation  to  the  bank,  and  the 
removal  of  the  deposits,  were  made  during  the  session.  A  project  for 
the  recharter  of  the  bank  for  six  years,  was  proposed  by  Mr.  Webster. 
The  question  on  granting  leave  to  introduce  his  bill,  was,  on  his  own 
motion,  laid  on  the  table,  to  be  called  up  at  a  future  day,  which,  how- 
ever, was  not  done. 

Among  the  reports  above  mentioned,  were  those  of  the  majority  and 
minority  of  a  committee  of  the  house  of  representatives,  appointed  to 
investigate  the  affairs  of  the  bank  of  the  United  States.  The  objects 
of  this  investigation  were,  to  ascertain  the  cause  of  the  commercial  dis- 
tress complained  of  in  the  memorials  presented  to  congress ;  whether 
the  bank  had  violated  its  charter ;  what  corruptions  and  abuses  existed 
in  its  management ;  whether  it  had  used  its  corporate  power  or  money 
to  control  the  press  or  interfere  in  politics ;  and  whether  it  had  any 
agency  in  producing  the  existing  pressure.  The  committee  had  power 
to  visit  the  bank,  to  inspect  its  books,  to  send  for  persons  and  papers, 
and  to  summon  and  examine  witnesses. 

The  majority  of  the  committee,  in  their  report,  complain  of  the  treat- 
ment which  they  received  from  the  bank  directors.  Although  they  had 
not  been  utterly  denied  the  means  of  making  the  required  investigation, 
their  proceedings  were  so  embarrassed,  and  their  privileges  so  restricted, 
as  to  prevent  the  performance  of  the  duties  enjoined  on  them.  They 
state,  at  the  conclusion  of  their  report : 

"  Thus,  your  committee  conclude,  the  just  power  and  authority  of 
the  house  of  representatives  have  been  set  at  naught,  defied,  and  con- 
temned. 

"  Thus  the  charter  of  the  bank  has  been  deliberately  violated  by  re- 
fusals of  directors  to  submit  their  books  and  papers  to  the  inspection 
of  this  committee. 

"  Thus  have  the  just  expectations  of  the  house  and  their  constituents 
been  disappointed,  and  all  means  of  obtaining  the  best  and  most  accurate 
information  concerning  the  operations  of  a  controlling  moneyed  institu- 
tion been  cut  off  and  denied." 

The  report  concludes  with  a  series  of  resolutions,  asserting  the  right 
of  congress,  by  the  charter  of  the  bank,  to  examine  the  books  and  pro- 
ceedings of  the  bank;  declaring  the  president  and  directors,  by  withhold- 
ing books  and  papers  called  for  by  the  committeCj  to  have  contemned  tba 


612  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

legitimate  authority  of  the  house  ;  and  ordering  the  president  and  direc- 
tors of  the  bank  to  be  arrested  and  brought  to  the  bar  of  the  house  to 
answer  for  their  contempt  of  its  lawful  authority. 

Mr.  Everett,  from  the  minority,  reported,  that  the  power  of  inquiring 
into  the  affairs  of  the  bank  extended  only  to  the  objects  for  which  it  was 
given,  viz.,  to  enable  a  committee  to  report  "whether  the  provisions  of 
the  charter  had  been  violated  or  not;"  but  did  not  embrace  the  right  to 
search  the  bank  for  objects  not  made  subjects  of  search  by  the  charter. 
A  general  search  for  any  purpose  was  unreasonable  ;  and  the  corporators 
of  the  bank,  as  well  as  other  citizens,  had  the  right  "  to  be  secure  in 
their  persons,  houses,  papers,  and  effects,  against  unreasonable  searches 
and  seizures."  A  room  in  the  banking-house  had  been  offered  for  the 
accommodation  of  the  committee  of  investigation.  The  committee  of  the 
directors  proposed  to  exhibit  their  books  in  person,  and  to  withdraw 
whenever  the  congress  committee  wished  to  deliberate  without  the  pre- 
sence of  any  other  person ;  the  latter  committee  insisted  on  the  right  to 
exclude  all  other  persons  from  the  room.  In  the  opinion  of  the  minority, 
the  right  of  the  committee  "  to  inspect  the  books"  did  not  involve  the 
right  of  withdrawing  the  books  of  the  bank  from  the  custody  of  the 
directors,  and  taking  them  into  their  own  exclusive  possession,  detaining 
them  as  long  as  they  pleased,  and  carrying  them  whithersoever  they 
pleased.  The  committee  of  investigation  having  withdrawn  from  the 
room  in  the  banking-house,  the  president  and  directors  were  required  to 
submit  certain  of  their  books  to  the  inspection  of  the  committee  at  their 
room  at  the  North  American  hotel.  The  committee  of  directors  declined, 
for  reasons  which  appeared  in  their  resolutions. 

The  directors  required  of  the  committee  of  investigation,  when  they 
should  ask  for  books  and  papers,  to  specify  the  objects  of  their  inquiry. 
This  ground,  assumed  by  the  directors  under  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  the  minority  regarded  as  a  legal  right.  They  expressed  the  opinion 
that  the  directors  were  disposed  to  afford  any  information  for  which  the 
committee  had  a  right  to  call,  and  concluded  their  report  thus :  "  Firmly 
believing  that  they  are  innocent  of  the  crimes  and  corruptions  with  which 
they  have  been  charged,  and  that,  if  guilty,  they  ought  not  to  be  com- 
pelled to  criminate  themselves,  the  undersigned  are  clearly  of  opinion, 
that  the  directors  of  the  bank  have  been  guilty  of  no  contempt  of  the 
authority  of  this  house,  in  having  respectfully  declined  to  submit  their 
books  for  inspection,  except  as  required  by  the  charter." 

These  reports  were  made  the  22d  of  May.  On  the  27th,  the  printing 
of  30,000  copies  of  both  reports  together  was  ordered.  In  the  debate 
on  printing,  Mr.  Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina,  said  he  wished  the  minor- 
ity repor  J  extensively  circulated  for  its  sound  and  correct  constitutional 


THK  BANK  AND  THE  PENSION  LAW.  613 

views,  althougli  it  did  not  go  far  enough ;  he  was  therefore  in  fuvor  of 
printing  the  largest  number.  But  he  particularly  wished  the  largest 
proposed  number  of  the  report  of  the  majority  published,  that  the  people 
might  see  the  monstrous  powers  arrogated  for  that  house.  The  citizens 
of  Pennsylvania  knew  that  their  meritorious  sons,  Ingham  and  Duane, 
had  been  ignominiously  dismissed  from  office  without  cause ;  but  they 
might  not  know  that  it  was  contemplated  to  drag  fourteen  of  her  distin- 
guished citizens  as  criminals  before  that  house. 

Mr.  Bynum,  of  North  Carolina,  replied  to  Mr.  Pinckney.  He  thought 
his  object  in  denouncing,  in  advance,  the  report  of  the  majority,  was  to 
prejudge  it,  and  to  forestall  public  opinion. 

On  the  29th  of  May,  Mr.  J.  Q.  Adams  obtained  the  unanimous  con- 
sent of  the  house  to  submit  as  a  substitute  for  the  resolutions  of  the 
majority,  three  resolutions,  declaring,  1st.  That  the  committee  of  investi- 
gation be  discharged  ;  2dly,  That  no  contempt  of  the  lawful  authority 
of  the  house  had  been  offered  by  the  president  and  directors  of  the  bank  ; 
and  3dly,  That  the  order  to  arraign  them  as  proposed,  would  be  an 
unconstitutional,  arbitrary,  and  oppressive  abuse  of  power.  These  reso- 
lutions, also,  were  ordered  printed. 

During  this  session  of  congress,  occurred  another  collision  between 
the  government  and  the  bank,  in  which  the  interposition  of  congress  was 
invoked.  A  message  from  the  president,  under  date  of  February  4,  1834, 
was  sent  to  both  houses,  informing  them  of  the  refusal,  by  the  bank,  to 
deliver  to  the  order  of  the  executive,  certain  books,  funds,  &c.,  relating 
to  the  payment  of  certain  pensioners,  under  the  act  of  June  7,  1832. 
He  charged  upon  the  bank  "  the  claim  to  usurp  the  function  of  the  judi- 
cial power,  and  to  prescribe  to  the  executive  department  the  manner  in 
which  it  shall  execute  the  trust  confided  to  it  by  law."  The  occasion 
of  this  controversy  was  the  difference  of  construction,  by  the  parties,  of 
the  law  above  mentioned.  The  bank  insisted  that  it  was  the  lawfully 
constituted  agent  for  the  payment  of  pensions,  and  that  it  was  bound  to 
a  performance  of  the  duty,  and  had  no  right  to  make  the  transfer  directed 
by  the  war  department.  Mr.  Biddle,  in  a  letter  to  the  secretary  of  war, 
(Mr.  Cass,)  refers  to  the  several  acts  of  congress  devolving  upon  the  bank 
and  its  branches  the  business  of  paying  pensions. 

The  attorney-general,  to  whom  the  president  had  referred  the  question, 
considered  the  act  of  1832,  as  not  properly  a  pension  laiv.  It  provided 
for  the  payment  of  certain  officers  and  other  persons  for  services  in  the 
war  of  the  revolution,  under  the  direction  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury^ 
and  at  such  places  and  times  as  he  may  direct.  The  duties  devolved 
upon  this  officer  by  this  act,  were  soon  after,  transferred  to  the  secretary 
of  war.     The  pension  office  being  a  bureau  of  the  war  department,  the 


614  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

secretary  of  war  had  assigned  to  the  pension  oJEee,  of  which  the  bank 
was  the  agent,  the  business  of  receivings  examining,  and  deciding  on 
applications  for  the  benefit  of  this  act,  not  because  the  law  was,  strictly 
speaking,  a,  pension  law,  but  because  the  whole  subject  bore  so  much 
analogy  to  the  pension  system,  as  to  make  it  proper  to  commit  its  gen- 
eral management  to  the  pension  office.  But  having  thought  proper  to 
discontinue  the  employment  of  the  bank  and  its  branches  so  far  as  related 
to  payments  under  the  act  of  1832,  the  order  to  this  effect  had  been 
accordingly  issued  by  virtue  of  the  authority  of  that  law. 

The  president  of  the  bank  considered  the  error  of  the  government  to 
lie  in  the  construction  of  the  law  as  to  the  places  of  payment.  The  word 
"  places"  must  be  used  in  its  ordinary  and  common  sense  meaning. 
Philadelphia  was  a  place  ;  New  York  was  a  place ;  and  in  authorizing 
the  secretary  to  designate  a  place,  it  must  have  been  intended  that  he 
should  point  out  the  general  locality  of  the  city  or  town,  and  not  the 
banking-house,  where  payment  was  to  be  made  ;  that  he  should  arrange 
the  pensioners  according  to  localities,  by  paying  them  at  the  agencies 
most  convenient  to  their  respective  residences.  Such  arrangements  had 
often  been  authorized  before.  But  the  instructions  did  not  direct  the 
place  whej'e,  but  the  2^^'son  hy  whom,  payment  should  be  made  in  that 
place.     No  authority  was  given  to  the  secretary  to  change  the  agent. 

In  the  senate,  the  message  of  the  president  was  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee on  the  judiciary,  who  made  a  report  in  accordance  with  the  views 
of  the  bank,  concluding  with  a  resolution,  "  That  the  department  of 
war  is  not  warranted  in  appointing  pension  agents  in  any  state  or  terri- 
tory where  the  bank  of  the  United  States  or  one  of  its  branches  has  been 
established." 

In  the  house,  the  committee  of  ways  and  means,  to  whom  the  message 
was  referred,  reported  in  coincidence  with  the  views  of  the  president  and 
secretary.  They  also  recommended  a  repeal  of  the  several  provisions 
constituting  the  bank  and  its  branches  pension  agents  under  the  invalid 
acts,  and  the  acts  of  1 8 1 8  and  1 820,  and  reported  a  bill  accordingly. 

Early  in  the  session,  (December  17,  1833,)  the  president  nominated 
to  the  senate,  as  directors  of  the  bank  of  the  United  States,  on  the  part 
of  the  government,  for  the  year  1834,  James  A.  Bayard,  of  Delaware,  in 
the  place  of  Saul  Alley,  and  Peter  Wager,  Henry  D.  Gilpin,  and  John 
T.  Sullivan,  of  Philadelphia,  and  Hugh  McElderry,  of  Baltimore,  to  the 
same  offices.  The  last  four  named  gentlemen  were  the  government 
directors  who  made  the  report  to  which  allusion  has  been  made,  and 
which  animadverted  upon  the  conduct  of  the  board  of  directors.  The 
nomination  of  Mr.  Bayard  was  confirmed  on  the  21st  of  January,  1834. 
The  question  on  the  nomination  of  the  others  was  several  times  post- 


POST-OFFICE   INVESTIGATION.  615 

poned,  until  the  27tli  of  February,  when  it  was  decided  in  the  negative  • 
the  votes  averaging  about  20  to  25. 

On  the  1 1th  of  March,  a  message  was  sent  to  the  senate,  renominating 
the  same  gentlemen.  The  president  disclaimed  the  right  to  call  in  ques- 
tion the  reasons  of  the  senate  for  rejecting  any  nomination.  He  thinks 
proper,  however,  to  communicate  his  views  of  the  consequences  of  the 
act  of  the  senate,  if  it  should  not  be  reconsidered.  He  then  defends 
the  conduct  of  these  directors,  for  which  he  conceives  that  they  had  been 
rejected.  If,  for  performing  a  duty  lawfully  required  of  them  by  the 
executive,  they  were  to  be  punished  by  rejection,  it  would  be  useless  and 
cruel  to  place  men  of  character  and  honor  in  that  situation.  Hence,  if 
the  nomination  of  these  men  was  not  confirmed,  the  bank  would  hereafter 
be  without  government  directors,  and  the  people  must  be  deprived  of 
their  chief  means  of  protection  against  its  abuses.  Mr.  Bayard  having 
refused  to  accept  his  appointment,  there  was  now  no  government  director. 

The  message  was  referred  to  the  committee  on  finance.  A  report 
from  the  committee,  by  Mr.  Tyler,  was  made  the  1st  of  May.  The  re- 
port said  that  the  president  disclaimed  all  right  to  inquire  into  the  rea- 
sons of  the  senate ;  yet  he  undertook  to  infer  from  circumstances  what 
these  reasons  must  have  been,  and  argued  at  large  against  their  validity. 
If  he  could  not  inquire  into  them,  he  could  not  with  propriety  assume 
them,  and  make  them  the  subject  of  comment.  The  committee  regretted 
the  intimation  that  the  names  of  other  persons  might  not  be  sent  to  the 
senate.  They  could  not  see  why  no  others  should  be  nominated  in  this 
case  as  well  as  in  other  cases  of  rejection.  If  the  offices  should  remain 
unfilled,  the  fault  would  not  be  the  fault  of  the  senate. 

The  message  renominating  Messrs.  Wager,  Gilpin,  Sullivan,  and 
McElderry  was  considered,  and  the  question  on  their  appointment  was 
determined  in  the  negative  :  ayes,  1 1  ;  noes,  30. 

No  farther  nominations  were  made  during  the  session. 

An  investigation  was  made  at  this  session  into  the  affairs  of  the  post- 
office  department.  A  report  was  presented  by  Mr.  Ewing,  from  the  post- 
office  committee,  representing  the  department  in  a  state  of  embarrass- 
ment, its  debt  being  upwards  of  $800,000  beyond  its  resources,  and 
mainly  attributable  to  mal  -administration  and  favoritism  in  making  con- 
tracts and  extra  allowances,  of  which  a  number  of  cases  are  particular- 
ized. Its  reports,  statements  and  estimates  were  declared  to  be  so  erro- 
neous and  defective,  as  to  be  unreliable.  The  report  ends  with  resolu- 
lutions  declaring  not  only  existing  errors  and  abuses,  but  defects  in  the 
system  itself,  which  needed  improvement. 

Mr.  Grundy,  chairman  of  the  committee,  in  behalf  of  the  minority, 
made  a  counter  report,  which  accounted  for  the  insolvency  of  the  depart- 


616  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ment,  by  sbowing  that  the  deficiency  of  the  yearly  income  had  com- 
menced before  the  present  incumbent  came  into  office,  being  about 
$100,000  on  his  taking  possession  of  the  department.  This  report 
stated  that  the  debt  of  the  department  beyond  its  available  means,  was 
only  about  $300,000 ;  that  this  was  owing  to  an  illusory  system  which 
had  ever  prevailed  of  accounting  for  the  expenses  of  the  department ; 
and  that  the  postmaster-general,  as  soon  as  the  cause  was  disclosed,  had 
applied  the  corrective.  It  showed  that  sundry  improvements  had  been 
introduced  into  the  department  by  the  present  postmaster-general ;  and 
it  assumed  to  correct  several  statements  contained  in  the  report  of  the 
majority.  It  also  recommended  a  more  perfect  organization  of  the  de- 
partment. 

A  few  days  before  the  close  of  the  session,  the  first  resolution  reported 
by  Mr.  Ewing,  declaring  that  large  sums  of  money  had  been  borrowed 
at  banks  by  the  postmaster-general  to  make  up  deficiencies  in  the  means 
of  the  department,  without  authority  of  law ;  and  that,  as  congress  alone 
has  power  to  borrow  money  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  all  such 
contracts  of  loans  by  the  postmaster-general  were  illegal  and  void,  was 
unanimously  adopted  :  ayes,  41. 

The  remaining  resolutions  were  then  laid  on  the  table  ;  and  the  com- 
mittee on  the  post-office  and  post-roads  was  authorized  to  continue  the 
investigations  into  the  affairs  of  the  department  during  the  recess  :  ayes, 
33  ;  noes,  10. 

A  committee  for  the  same  purpose  was  appointed  by  the  house.  Very 
full  and  voluminous  reports  were  made  at  the  next  session — the  minority 
of  each  committee  also  reporting.  Although  these  reports  were  on 
many  points  discordant,  they  all  concurred  in  the  general  conclusion, 
that  a  reform  in  the  management  of  the  department  was  imperiously  de- 
manded. The  committee  of  the  house,  a  majority  of  whom  were  friendly 
to  the  administration^  admitted,  that  "  the  finances  of  the  department 
had  been  managed  without  frugality,  system,  intelligence,  or  adequate 
public  utility ;"  that  "  the  practice  of  granting  extra  allowances  had 
run  into  wild  excesses;"  &c.  They  say  in  their  concluding  paragraph  : 
"  The  comm'ittee,  in  surveying  the  wide  field  of  their  labors,  regret  only 
that  their  reward  had  not  been  discoveries  of  a  more  pleasing  character. 
They  had  hoped  that  their  researches  would  have  brought  to  light  the 
fruits  of  an  enlightened  and  well  directed  labor,  instead  of  proofs  of 
error  and  neglect.  But  they  have  finished  the  task  assigned  them  with 
an  honest  purpose,  and  to  the  best  of  their  ability." 

A  bill  was  reported  by  the  senate  committee  for  reforming  the  admin- 
istration of  the  post-office,  which  passed  that  body  unanimously,  and 
soon  after  became  a  law. 


CABINET    CHANGES MISSION    TO    ENGLAND.  01? 


CHAPTER  L. 

CABINET    CHANGES. MISSION    TO    ENGLAND. BENTON's    EXPUNGING    RESO- 
LUTION.  FRENCH    INDEMNITY. ROWER   OF   REMOVAL. BRANCH  MINTS. 

In  June,  1834,  Mr.  M'Lane  resigned  the  office  of  secretary  of  state, 
and  John  Forsyth,  senator  in  congress  from  Georgia,  was  appointed  in 
his  place.  Levi  Woodbury,  secretary  of  the  navy,  was  appointed  secre- 
tary of  the  treasury,  in  the  place  of  Mr.  Taney,  whose  appointment 
during  the  recess,  the  senate  refused  to  confirm.  Mahlon  Dickerson, 
late  senator  in  congress  from  New  Jersey,  was  appointed  secretary  of 
the  navy.  Mr.  Butler's  previous  appointment  as  attorney-general  was 
confirmed. 

Andrew  Stevenson,  of  Virginia,  and  speaker  of  the  house,  was  nomi- 
nated as  minister  to  Great  Britain,  and  rejected  by  the  senate.  No 
nomination  to  this  office  had  been  made  since  the  rejection  of  Mr.  Yan 
Buren,  in  1832;  and  the  mission  remained  vacant  until  March,  1836, 
when  Mr.  Stevenson  was  again  nominated,  and  the  nomination  confirmed. 
During  this  vacancy,  the  affairs  of  the  United  States  with  the  govern- 
ment of  Great  Britain,  were  in  the  charge  of  Aaron  Vail,  who  had  been 
secretary  of  legation  under  Mr.  Van  Buren. 

The  long  delay  in  making  a  nomination  to  fill  this  vacancy,  and  the 
rejection  of  Mr.  Stevenson,  were  the  subject  of  much  speculation  and 
remark.  It  was  said  that  the  president  had,  at  the  time  of  Mr.  Van 
Buren's  rejection,  avowed  the  intention  of  sending  no  successor.  The 
alleged  cause  of  Mr.  Stevenson's  rejection  was  the  fact  that  he  had  for  a 
year  had  the  assurance  of  the  mission.  The  facts  in  this  case  were  dis- 
closed by  letters  of  Mr.  Livingston,  secretary  of  state,  Mr.  Ritchie, 
editor  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  and  Wm.  B.  Lewis.  The  letter  of 
Mr.  Livingston  to  Mr.  Stevenson  was  communicated  by  the  president  on 
the  call  of  the  senate.  Mr.  Livingston's  letter  to  Mr.  Stevenson,  of 
March,  1833,  requested  him  "  to  hold  himself  in  readiness  to  embark 
in  the  course  of  the  summer."  And  he  held  this  assurance  when  he 
suffered  himself  to  be  reelected  to  congress,  and  to  the  office  of  speaker  ; 
and  when  the  bill  passed  the  house,  (himself  in  the  chair,)  making  the 
appropriation  for  an  outfit  of  $9,000,  with  an  annual  salary  of  the  same 
amount.  It  was  presumed,  that,  if  this  fact  had  been  known  to  his  con- 
stituents, they  would  not  have  elected  him. 

Some  senators  found  an  additional  objection  in  the  unprecedented 


618  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

extent  to  which  the  practice  had  been  carried  of  appointing  members  of 
congress  to  office,  Thirtj-eight — thirteen  senators  and  twenty-five 
representatives,  including  Mr.  Stevenson— holding,  or  having  within  a 
year  held,  these  offices,  had  received  appointments  during  the  first  five 
years  of  the  administration  ;  a  number  nearly  equal,  it  was  said,  to  that 
of  similar  appointments  under  all  preceding  administrations  :  a  practice, 
too,  which  he  had  himself  condemned  as  tending  to  corruption.  [See 
letter  to  Tennessee  legrslature.] 

In  explanation  of  this  affair,  the  president,  in  his  message  communi- 
cating the  correspondence,  stated,  that  the  appointment  had  been  made 
upon  the  contingency  of  the  consent  of  Great  Britain  to  open  a  negotia- 
tion in  London,  which  was  afterward  commenced  at  AVashington.  What 
the  negotiation  was,  or  whether  there  was  any  motive  for  the  appoint- 
ment in  1834  which  did  not  exist  in  1833,  the  president  did  not  say. 
In  farther  explanation  of  the  transaction,  the  other  letters  above  men- 
tioned were,  at  the  instance  of  Mr.  Stevenson,  presented  to  the  senate. 
The  letter  of  Mr.  Ritchie  to  Mr.  Stevenson  was  written  August  15, 
1834,  after  the  message  of  the  president  with  Mr.  Livingston's  letter 
had  been  communicated  to  the  senate.     Mr.  R.  says  : 

"  I  well  recollect  the  circumstances  to  which  you  refer.  "When  you 
showed  me  the  note  of  Mr.  Livingston,  we  had  a  great  deal  of  conversa- 
tion about  it.  Neither  of  us  regarded  the  notice  in  the  light  of  an  ap- 
pointment. In  fact,  it  presented  itself  as  a  mere  contingency ;  and  we 
considered  it  extremely  doubtful  whether  or  when  you  would  be  appoint- 
ed, or,  if  at  all;  for  if  the  British  declined  a  negotiation,  it  seemed  to 
be  the  president's  intention  to  make  no  nomination  at  all,  not  even  dur- 
ing the  ensuing  session  of  congress.  But  this  idea  struck  me,  that  he 
might  appoint  you  in  case  the  contingency  happened  during  the  recess, 
and  not  send  you,  but  Mr.  Livingston  to  France.  I  suggested  that  these 
appointments  ought  not,  and  could  not  be  made  according  to  the  spirit 
of  the  constitution,  during  the  recess  of  the  senate.  You  promptly  and 
cordially  concurred  in  this  view  of  the  subject;  and  I  then  determined 
to  write  to  a  friend  in  Washington,  for  the  purpose  of  laying  this  view 
before  the  president  himself.  You  approved  of  my  doing  so ;  and,  in 
fact,  we  agreed  perfectly  in  the  course  that  ought  to  be  taken.  We 
determined  to  take  no  notice  of  Mr.  Livingston's  letter,  to  ac,t  yourself 
as  if  no  such  letter  had  been  written ;  that  it  would  be  best  not  to  offer 
to  accept  the  appointment  if  made  in  the  summer,  and  to  await  the 
action  of  the  senate,  &c.,  &c." 

The  "  friend  in  Washington"  to  whom  Mr.  Ritchie  wrote,  was  Wil- 
liam B.  Lewis,  who,  on  the  21st  of  June,  1834,  communicated  to  Mr. 
Stevenson  extracts  of  two  letters  received  from  Mr.  Ritchie  in  1833,  in 


REPORT    OF    COMMITTEE    OF    FINANCE.  619 

which  the  latter  says :  "  One  of  the  highest  powers  which  attaches  to 
the  executive,  is  that  of  appointment ;  over  its  exercise  is  accordingly 
thrown,  and  wisely  thrown,  the  check  of  concurrence  by  the  senate. 
Now,  sir,  doubts  do  exist,  whether  the  vacancy  in  the  missions  to  Lon- 
don and  Paris  did  not  originally  occur  during  the  recess  of  the  senate. 
Secondly,  whether  the  vacancy  does  not  still  exist ;  and  thirdly,  whether 
it  ought  now  to  be  filled  without  a  consultation  with  the  senate." 

These  explanations,  however,  did  not  satisfy  the  opposition.  They 
saw  a  secret  design  in  holding  back  the  appointment.  If  he  wished  to 
bring  the  president  back  to  -a  constitutional  practice  of  appointment, 
why  did  he  not  object  at  the  time  to  receiving  the  appointment  during 
the  recess  ?  If  he  did  not  desire  it  to  be  kept  back  for  some  special 
purpose,  why  did  he  employ  the  agency  of  Mr.  Ritchie,  through  which 
the  promise  of  the  office  had  been  kept  alive  ?  And  why  was  the  nomi- 
nation withheld  until  near  the  close  of  the  session  ?  It  was  insinuated 
that  the  president  had  a  certain  design  to  accomplish,  which  required 
the  services  of  Mr.  Stevenson  in  congress  during  another  session  ;  of 
which  a  sufficient  explanation  was  furnished  by  the  cast  given  to  certain 
important  committees,  and  the  dissatisfaction  excited  in  the  discharge 
of  the  ordinary  duties  of  presiding  officer  of  the  house.  He  had  resign- 
ed the  speaker's  chair  the  last  of  May.  The  customary  resolution  of 
thanks  was  not  moved  until  near  the  close  of  the  session,  when  it  re- 
ceived unusual  opposition.     It  was  adopted  by  97  ayes  to  49  noes. 

On  the  resignation  of  Mr.  Stevenson,  John  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  was 
chosen  speaker,  on  the  tenth  ballot.  He  received  114  votes;  James 
K.  Polk,  78 ;  scattering  and  blanks,  26.  Mr.  Bell  was  one  of  those 
members  who,  though  friendly  to  the  administration,  was  opposed  to  the 
claims  of  Mr.  Van  Buren  for  the  presidency ;  and  was  elected  by  a 
union  of  that  branch  of  the  party  with  the  opposition. 

The  committee  on  finance,  in  the  senate,  who  had  been  instructed,  at 
the  preceding  session,  to  investigate  the  afi"airs  and  conduct  of  the  bank 
of  the  United  States  during  the  recess,  made  a  very  voluminous  report 
on  the  subject,  on  the  18th  of  December,  1834.  Mr.  Webster,  the  chair- 
man, not  having  acted  with  the  committee,  the  report  was  drawn  up  by 
Mr.  Tyler.  The  subjects  upon  which  they  reported,  were,  the  alleged 
violation  of  the  charter  of  the  bank;  the  safety  of  the  public  deposits; 
the  management  of  the  bank ;  the  French  bill ;  intermeddling  with 
politics;  rewarding  editors;  &c.,  &c.  The  report,  as  was  generally 
expected,  was  in  the  main  favorable  to  the  bank.  It  conveys,  however, 
some  censure  for  having  expended  too  much  in  the  printing  and  distribu- 
tion of  speeches  and  pamphlets.  "While  the  committee  approved  the 
regulation  authorizing  the  bank  to  pay  for  publications  "  necessary  for  a 


620  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN.    :; 

true  exposition  of  its  condition,  or  to  defend  itself  against  unjust  or  in- 
jurious accusations,"  they  gave  it  as  their  decided  opinion,  that  this 
expense  for  printing  had  for  the  last  few  years  been  unnecessarily  in- 
creased. The  information  would  have  reached  the  people  through  the 
ordinary  channels  of  communication;  and  the  attitude  of  the  hank 
would  have  lost  nothing  in  the  public  estimation  by  the  practice  of  more 
reserve. 

The  committee  also  disapproved  the  practice  which  had  grown  up 
under  the  resolution  of  March  11,  1831,  which  authorized  the  president 
of  the  bank,  by  the  circulation  of  documents  and  papers,  "  to  communi- 
cate to  the  people  information  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  operations  of 
the  bank."  Expenditures  had  been  made  under  it,  resting  on  the  orders 
of  the  president,  without  vouchers  or  defined  purpose. 

The  necessity  or  importance  of  this  investigation  was  much  doubted. 
As  a  measure  of  party  policy,  its  expediency  was  perhaps  still  more 
questionable.  "Whether  justly  or  unjustly,  the  bank  was  growing  into 
disfavor ;  and  occasion  was  taken  by  its  opponents  to  impute  to  the 
authors  of  this  investigation  the  design  of  attempting  to  retrieve  the 
popularity  of  the  institution.  Hence  the  committee  became  known  by 
the  name  of  the  "  white-washing  committee." 

A  bill  to  regulate  the  deposits  in  the  state  banks,  had  passed  the 
house  at  the  session  of  1833-34,  a  few  days  before  its  close.  It  was 
taken  up  in  the  senate  on  the  last  day  of  the  session,  and  laid  on  the 
table.  At  an  early  day  of  the  next  session,  a  similar  bill  was  reported 
in  the  house  by  Mr.  Polk,  which  was  discussed  until  the  13th  of  Feb- 
ruary; after  which  no  farther  action  appears  from  the  journal  to  have 
been  taken  upon  it. 

In  the  senate,  Mr.  Calhoun,  from  a  select  committee  on  executive 
patronage,  on  the  9th  of  February,  also  reported,  among  other  things, 
a  bill  to  regulate  the  deposits  of  the  public  money,  which  passed  the 
senate,  28  to  12.  All  the  senators  who  voted  in  the  negative,  except 
two  or  three,  were  political  friends  of  the  president.  Their  opposition  to 
the  bill,  however,  was  chiefly  owing,  it  is  believed,  not  to  making  de- 
posits in  the  banks,  but  to  the  terms  and  conditions  upon  which  they 
were  to  be  made.  Depositing  in  these  banks  had  from  the  beginning 
been  recommended  by  the  president  as  his  favorite  measure ;  from  which 
fact,  the  selected  banks  came  to  be  called  the  "  pet  banks." 

In  the  discussion  of  the  bill  in  the  house,  was  suggested  the  plan  of 
what  was  afterwards  called  the  "  sub-treasury."  It  was  similar  to  the 
present  established  system.  It  was  moved  by  Mr.  Gordon,  of  \'irginia, 
as  an  amendment,  and  proposed  the  appointment  of  agents  of  the  trea- 
surer of  the  United  States,  to  keep  and  disburse  the  revenue,  giving 


621 

bonds  for  the  faithful  execution  of  their  office.  It  proposed  also,  that 
the  whole  revenue  from  customs,  lands,  and  other  sources,  should  be  paid 
in  current  coin  of  the  United  States.  It  was  treated  as  a  whig  or  opposi- 
tion measure,  from  its  having  received  a  majority  of  its  votes  from  mem- 
bers of  that  party,  and  disaffected  democrats — most  of  them,  it  is  be- 
lieved, the  latter.  Mr.  Gordon  had  been  a  Jackson  man,  and  probably 
was  still  a  supporter  of  the  measures  of  the  administration  generally. 
He  was  opposed  to  the  United  States  bank  as  unconstitutional  and  dan- 
gerous, and  had  carried  his  opposition  to  the  extreme.  But  disapprov- 
ing of  the  president's  interference  with  the  public  revenues,  he  had,  since 
the  removal  of  the  deposits,  generally  voted  on  this  and  kindred  ques- 
tions with  the  opposition.  Opposed  to  the  use  of  banks  altogether,  he 
had  at  the  preceding  session  offered  a  similar  amendment  to  the  bill  then 
pending.     The  amendment  now  offered  was  rejected  :  ayes,  33,  noes,  161. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  the  state  bank  system  of  deposit,  which  was 
adopted  by  the  administration  party  with  almost  entire  unanimity,  was, 
within  two  or  three  years  thereafter,  abandoned  in  favor  of  the  sub- 
treasury  scheme,  which  it  had  so  generally  and  unqualifiedly  condemned ; 
and  that  the  whigs,  preferring  the  state  banks  to  the  sub-treasury  as  a 
place  of  deposit,  became  the  advocates  of  the  former  system  rejected  by 
their  opponents. 

At  the  time  of  the  adoption,  by  the  senate,  March  28,  1834,  of  the 
resolution  of  Mr.  Clay,  pronouncing  the  president's  proceedings  in 
relation  to  the  deposits  to  be  in  derogation  of  the  constitution  and  laws, 
Mr.  Benton  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  move,  from  time  to  time, 
that  the  resolution  be  expunged  from  the  journal,  until  it  should  be 
done,  or  until  he  should  cease  to  be  a  member  of  that  body.  In  pur- 
suance of  that  intention,  on  the  1 8th  of  February,  1835,  he  moved  a 
resolution,  ordering  the  obnoxious  resolution  to  be  expunged,  because 
it  was  ''  illegal  and  unjust,  of  evil  example,  indefinite  and  vague,  ex- 
pressing a  criminal  charge  without  specification;  and  was  irregularly 
and  unconstitutionally  adopted  by  the  senate  in  subversion  of  the  rights 
of  defense  which  belong  to  an  accused  and  impeachable  officer ;  and  at  a 
time  and  under  circumstances  to  endanger  the  political  rights,  and  to 
injure  the  pecuniary  interests  of  the  people  of  the  United  States." 

Mr.  Poindexter  objected  to  the  reception  of  the  resolution,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  out  of  order.  The  constitution  made  it  the  duty  of 
each  house  to  keep  a  journal  of  their  proceedings,  and  the  senate  had 
no  right  to  expunge  any  of  those  proceedings  from  its  journal. 

Mr.  Brown,  of  North  Carolina,  said,  that  to  pronounce  the  alteration 
of  the  journal  unconstitutional,  was  anticipating  a  conclusion  that 
could  be  reaciied  only  through  an  investigation;  yet  the  senator  from 


OS-2  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Mississippi  would  arrest  the  inquiry  in  its  incipient  stage.  Besides 
several  states — four  or  five,  he  believed — had,  by  their  legislatures, 
sent  instructions  to  their  senators  to  vote  for  expunging  the  resolution. 
And  would  the  senate  refuse  to  entertain  a  proposition  in  defiance  of  the 
action  of  so  many  sovereign  states  ? 

Mr.  Leigh,  though  opposed  to  the  resolution,  was  in  favor  of  its 
reception;  and  at  his  request,  Mr.  Poindexter  withdrew  his  objection. 

Mr.  Benton  went  into  an  exposition  of  the  several  reasons  enumer- 
ated in  his  resolution,  for  the  expurgation  of  the  record.  The  conduct 
of  the  bank  which  gave  occasion  for  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  the 
removal  of  Mr.  Duane,  and  kindred  topics,  were  made  the  subject  of 
remark,  and  were  severally  treated  in  the  same  manner  as  they  had  been 
on  former  occasions. 

The  speech  of  Mr.  Southard  in  reply,  or  that  part  of  it  which  related 
directly  to  the  main  subject  under  consideration,  was  also  chiefly  a 
reproduction  of  the  arguments  before  used  in  condemnation  of  the 
course  of  the  president  and  the  defense  of  the  senate.  The  greater 
part  of  his  speech  is  a  discussion  of  the  incidental  question  of  the  right 
of  instruction.  This  subject  was  argued  with  much  ability,  and  the 
more  fully,  perhaps,  from  his  representing  a  state  whose  senators  were 
under  instructions.     [Appendix,  Note    I.] 

On  the  last  day  of  the  session,  March  3,  Mi.  White,  of  Tennessee, 
moved  to  amend  the  resolution,  by  striking  out  the  word  "  expunge," 
and  inserting  "  rescind,  reverse,  and  to  make  null  and  void."  He  said 
he  could  not  vote  to  obliterate  and  deface  the  journal;  and  he  wished 
the  resolution  so  framed  as  to  express  his  feelings  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Benton  considered  the  word  "expunge"  strictly  parliamentary. 
He  did  not  wish  to  obliterate  the  journal,  but  to  use  words  which  would 
express  that  the  resolution  ought  never  to  have  been  put  there.  The 
word  "  rescind"  was  not  strong  enough ;  it  admitted  the  lawfulness  of 
the  act  at  the  time  it  was  done.  Every  senator  might  vote  to  rescind 
the  resolution  without  altering  his  opinion. 

Mr.  White,  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  M'Kean,  of  Pennsylvania, 
modified  his  amendment  by  adopting  the  words  "  repeal  and  reverse  ;" 
and  then  proceeded  to  give  additional  reasons  in  favor  of  his  amend- 
ment. After  a  discussion  of  considerable  length,  Mr.  King,  of  Ala- 
bama, moved  to  amend  that  part  of  the  resolution  proposed  to  be 
stricken  out,  by  first  striking  out  the  words,  "  ordered  to  be  expunged 
from  the  journals,"  which  motion  was  carried  :  ayes,  39  ;  noes,  7. 

Mr.  Webster  then  congratulated  the  senate  on  the  failure  of  the 
attempt  to  deface  its  journal,  and  moved  that  the  resolution  be  laid 
upon  the  table,  which  was  done  without  farther  debate  :  ayes,  27  \ 
noes,  20 


FRENCH   INDEMNITY.  623 

A  claim  for  indemnity  for  spoliations  of  the  property  of  American 
citizens  by  France  prior  to  the  year  1800,  was  presented  at  the  session 
of  1834-35.  The  pretension  of  the  claimants  was,  that,  by  the  treaty 
of  1800,  the  United  States,  in  order  to  obtain  from  France  a  discharge 
from  liabilities  incurred  by  a  non-fulfillment  of  the  stipulations  of  the 
treaties  of  1778,  had  surrendered  to  the  French  government  these 
claims  of  our  citizens,  and  had  thereby  become  justly  liable  for  their 
payment.     The  bill  proposed  to  pay  to  the  claimants  $5,000,000. 

The  question  was  ably  argued  in  the  senate,  on  both  sides.  Mr. 
Webster,  the  author  of  the  bill,  was  its  leading  advocate;  and  Mr. 
Wright  its  most  prominent  opponent.  Their  speeches  were  not  only 
powerful  in  argument,  but  highly  valuable  for  the  historical  facts  which 
they  contained  in  respect  to  the  relations  between  the  two  countries. 
The  speech  of  Mr.  Wright,  especially,  gives  a  minute  and  full  history 
of  our  afi"airs  with  France. 

Mr.  Tyler,  in  stating  the  general  ground  of  opposition  to  the  bill, 
said,  our  government  had  not  neglected  any  efforts  to  obtain  recompense 
for  the  claimants.  Minister  after  minister  had  been  sent  to  France  to 
negotiate  on  this  point.  The  object  had  been  pursued  up  to  the  year 
1800,  with  the  utmost  assiduity;  and  the  government  had  thus  fulfilled 
its  duties  to  its  citizens.  These  claims  had  been  pressed  on  the  ground 
that  the  United  States  had,  by  the  treaty  of  1800,  made  provision  for 
the  payment,  and,  for  a  valid  consideration,  had  discharged  France  from 
liability,  and  assumed  these  claims.  And  what  was  that  consideration  ? 
It  was  one  upon  which  no  payment  could  be  made,  on  which  no  payment 
could  rest.  By  the  treaty  of  1778,  there  were  mutual  stipulations. 
One  was  that  France  should  guaranty  the  independence  of  the  United 
States,  while  the  United  States  should  guaranty  to  France  the  two  West 
India  Islands,  Gruadaloupe  and  Martinique. 

In  the  war  between  Great  Britain  and  France,  our  obligation  to  fulfill 
the  treaty  remained  in  full  force.  Was  it  expected  that  we  should  take 
a  part  in  that  war  ?  ,  He  asked  if  there  was  not  a  great  anxiety  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  to  get  rid  of  that  guaranty.  And  now,  be- 
cause, by  a  subsequent  treaty,  we  had  got  rid  of  the  guaranty,  had  citi- 
zens a  right  to  demand  compensation  for  losses  ?  Such  a  conclusion  was 
in  opppsition  to  every  authority  which  could  be  brought  forward. 

The  bill  was  supported  by  Messrs.  Webster,  Preston,  Shepley,  Rob- 
bins,  and  Prentiss;  and  opposed  by  Messrs.  Tyler,  Benton,  Hill, Wright, 
King,  of  Georgia,  and  Bibb.  It  passed  the  senate  on  the  28th  of  Janu- 
ary, 25  to  21.  In  the  house,  the  committee  to  whom  the  bill  was  refer- 
red, reported  that  there  was  not  time  at  this  session  to  investigate  the 
subject,  and  were  discharged. 


624  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

At  the  session  of  1834-35,  a  committee  was  appointed  in  the  senate 
to  consider  the  expediency  of  reducing  the  executive  patronage,  of  which 
Mr.  Calhoun  was  chairman.  The  other  members  of  the  committee  were, 
Messrs.  Webster,  Southard,  King,  of  Georgia,  Bibb  and  Benton.  Messrs. 
Benton  and  King  were  friends  of  the  administration;  Mr.  Bibb  had  for 
some  time  acted  with  the  opposition. 

On  the  9  th  of  February,  a  long  report  was  made,  which  occupied 
about  an  hour  and  a  half  in  the  reading.  It  concluded  with  a  joint  reso- 
lution, proposing  to  amend  the  constitution  so  as  to  provide  for  a  distri- 
bution of  the  surplus  revenues  among  the  states  and  territories.  A  bill 
was  reported  to  regulate  the  deposits  of  the  public  moneys ;  and  another 
to  repeal  certain  sections  of  an  act  of  1820,  limiting  the  term  of  certain 
officers.  The  senate  ordered  10,000  copies  of  the  report  printed,  and 
the  usual  number  of  the  report  of  Mr.  Benton  and  others  in  1826. 

The  report  showed  the  annual  public  expenditures  to  have  been  in 
1825,  $11,490,460,  and  in  1833,  to  have  risen  to  $22,713,755,  not 
including  payments  on  account  of  the  public  debt.  This  increase  of 
expenditure  was  attributed  to  several  causes ;  among  which  was  the 
large  increase  of  officers,  agents,  contractors,  &c,,  who  were  paid  from 
the  treasury.  Their  number  was  stated  at  upwards  of  60,000,  of  whom 
31,917  were  connected  with  the  post-office.  The  practice  of  removing 
faithful  and  well  qualified  persons  from  office  to  make  place  for  those 
who  were  of  the  party  in  power — a  practice  of  recent  date — was  advert- 
ed to  and  reprehended.  Such  cases,  though  they  had  occurred  under 
former  administrations,  had  been  comparatively  rare. 

Increased  power  had  also  been  acquired  by  the  executive  in  the  con- 
trol recently  assumed  over  the  public  funds ;  and  facts  were  stated  to 
show  the  extent  of  patronage  exercised  through  this  power  of  controlling 
the  deposits.  The  average  amount  of  deposits  was  about  $10,000,000, 
and  the  estimated  value  of  their  use  to  the  banks  was  about  four  per 
cent. ;  making  $400,000  per  annum.  This  immense  gain  to  these  influ- 
ential monopolies  depended  upon  the  will  and  pleasure  of  the  executive, 
and  gave  him  a  control  over  them.  Anticipating,  during  the  existence  of 
the  compromise  tariff  acts,  an  annual  surplus  of  revenue  of  $9,000,000, 
and  protesting  against  its  accumulating  in  the  banks  in  which  it  was  de- 
posited, the  committee  proposed  an  annual  distribution  of  the  surplus, 
until  the  year  1 842,  when  the  compromise  act  would  expire. 

The  report  was  warmly  opposed  by  Mr.  Benton.  He  concurred  with 
the  general  purport  and  object  of  the  report,  as  to  the  augmentation  of 
money  expended,  and  of  men  employed  and  fed  by  the  government,  and 
the  necessity  of  retrenchment.  But  the  objects  of  expenditure  which 
were  of  .questionable  propriety,  had  their  origin  in  preceding  administra- 


POWER    OF    REMOVAL.  625 

tions,  and  some  of  them  in  the  administration  of  Mr.  Monroe,  when  the 
author  of  the  report  was  a  member  of  it ;  others  under  Mr.  Adams ; 
while  those  of  real  expediency  owed  their  origin  to  the  present  adminis- 
tration ;  among  which  were  the  removal  of  the  Indians,  and  the  great 
acquisition  of  lands,  by  the  extinction  of  the  Indian  title.  He  pro- 
nounced the  report  fallacious  and  delusive.  Those  great  additional  pay- 
ments in  1833,  were  for  unusual,  extraordinary  objects,  occurring  but 
once.  And  he  mentioned  the  Black  Hawk  war  in  1832,  the  expenses  of 
which  were  principally  paid  in  1833  ;  the  large  sum  paid  under  the  pen- 
sion act  of  1832,  the  provisions  of  which  extended  back  to  1831  ;  the 
sum  thus  accumulated,  amounting  to  three  and  a  half  millions.  These, 
with  certain  other  special  expenditures  which  he  mentioned,  amounted  to 
$7,000,000. 

Mr.  B.  noticed  the  several  points  of  the  report  in  detail.  He  ridiculed 
the  idea  of  altering  the  constitution  for  the  period  of  eight  years  to  get 
rid  of  surplus  revenue.  Nine  millions  to  be  distributed  annually  for  eight 
years !  A  most  dazzling,  seductive  and  fascinating  scheme  !  He  had 
seen  a  gentleman  who  looked  upon  it  as  establishing  a  new  era  in  our 
public  affairs,  a  new  test  for  the  formation  of  parties,  operating  the  po- 
litical salvation  and  elevation  of  all  who  supported  it,  and  the  immedi- 
ate and  utter  political  damnation  of  all  who  opposed  it.  Mr.  B.  denied 
that  there  would  be  so  large  a  surplus.  And  it  might  be  reduced  with- 
out disturbing  the  compromise  act.  The  price  of  public  lands  might  be 
reduced.  But  whether  this  was  done  or  not,  the  revenue  from  that 
source  would  be  diminished  :  there  had  been  unusual  quantities  of  land 
sold  for  three  or  four  years ;  but  these  large  sales  would  not  continue. 
There  were  national  objects  upon  which  the  surplus  revenues  might  be 
expended  :  the  fortifying  of  our  coasts,  both  on  the  Atlantic  and  on  the 
lakes ;  the  increase  of  the  navy,  &c. 

Mr.  Leigh  said  the  credit  or  discredit  of  originating  the  proposition 
to  divide  the  surplus  revenue  among  the  states,  did  not  belong  to  the 
committee,  but  to  the  president  himself,  who  had  recommended  it  in  his 
annual  messages  of  1829  and  1830 ;  and  he  read  extracts  from  the  mes- 
sage of  1830,  containing  such  recommendation. 

The  principal  debate  on  executive  patronage  took  place  in  discussing 
the  bill  reported  by  the  committee,  proposing  to  repeal  the  first  and 
second  sections  of  the  act  of  1820,  and  to  require  the  president  every 
four  years  to  lay  before  congress  the  names  of  all  defaulting  offi- 
cers and  agents  ;  and,  in  cases  of  nomination  to  fill  vacancies  caused  by 
removal  from  office,  to  assign  the  reasons  for  removal.  The  provisions 
of  the  bill  were  the  same  as  those  of  the  bill  reported  by  Mr.  Benton  in 
1826.     The  principal  participators  in  the  debate  were  Messrs.  Calhoun, 

40 


626  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Ewino-,  Southard,  Webster,  White,  Clayton,  Preston,  and  Clay,  in  favor 
of  the  bill ;  and  Messrs.  Benton,  Shepley,  Wright,  Buchanan,  Grundy, 
and  Hill,  in  opposition.  Mr.  Benton,  though  opposed  to  certain  parts 
of  the  report,  as  well  as  certain  points  discussed  in  the  debate,  finally 
voted  for  the  biU.     The  vote  on  its  passage  was,  31  ayes  to  16  noes. 

The  provisions  in  the  act  of  1820  proposed  to  be  repealed,  limited  the 
term  of  certain  officers,  (receiving  and  disbursing  officers,)  to  four  years. 
It  was  proposed  by  this  bill,  that,  if  their  accounts  were  regularly  settled, 
and  the  money  faithfully  collected  and  disbursed,  they  were  to  remain  in 
office,  unless  for  other  cause  their  removal  should  be  required. 

The  debate  on  this  bill  was  one  of  much  interest ;  the  power  of 
removal  by  the  executive  being  one  of  the  topics  of  discussion.  This 
subject  was  ably  argued  by  Mr.  Webster ;  and  as  his  opinion,  or  at  least 
the  argument  by  which  it  is  sustained,  differs  somewhat  from  any  which 
we  have  elsewhere  given  on  this  controverted  question,  a  sketch  of  it  is 
presented. 

Mr.  W.  admitted  that  the  power  of  the  president  to  remove  officers  at 
will,  was  settled  by  construction,  by  precedent,  by  practice,  and  by 
statute.  But  he  believed  that  the  original  decision,  by  the  first  congress, 
was  wrong.  The  constitution  did  not  expressly  confer  this  power :  those 
who  maintain  its  existence,  in  the  single  hands  of  the  president,  derived 
it  from  the  clause  which  says,  ''  the  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in 
a  president."  The  power  of  removal,  it  was  said,  was  an  executive 
power,  and  was  therefore  included.  But  the  question  was,  What  is  exe- 
cutive power ;  and  what  are  its  boundaries  ?  He  thought  it  was  not 
the  intention  of  the  framers  of  our  written  constitution  to  confer  it  in  the 
lump.  When  speaking  of  executive  power,  did  they  mean  executive 
power  as  known  in  England,  or  as  in  France,  or  as  in  Russia  ?  It  differed 
in  all  these  countries.  He  thought  they  meant  that  one  magistrate,  to 
be  called  president,  should  hold  the  executive  authority ;  but  they  meant, 
further,  that  he  should  hold  it  according  to  the  grants  and  limitations 
of  the  constitution  itself  They  did  not  intend  a  sweeping  gift  of  prero- 
gative, as  was  evident  from  their  proceeding  immediately  after  using 
these  general  words,  to  enumerate  and  define  specifically  the  several  dis- 
tinct and  particular  authorities  of  the  president. 

If  the  power  was  an  executive  power,  it  must  be  implied  from  the  gen- 
eral words.  But  the  power  of  appointment  was  not  left  to  be  so  implied ; 
why  should  the  power  of  removal  have  been  so  left  ?  Both  were  closely 
connected  :  one  was  indispensable  to  the  other ;  why  then  was  one  care- 
fully expressed  and  defined,  and  not  a  word  said  about  the  other  ? 
Nothing  was  said  in  the  constitution  about  the  power  of  removal,  because 
it  was  not  a  separate  and  distinct  power.     It  was  a  part  of  the  power  of 


POWER    OF    REjfoVAL.  627 

appointment,  going  with  it,  or  resulting  from  it.  The  constitution  or 
the  laws  might  separate  these  powers,  or  in  prescribing  the  tenure  of 
office,  might  place  the  officer  beyond  the  reach  of  the  appointing  power. 
But  where  officers  hold  their  places  at  will,  that  will  is  necessarily  the 
will  of  the  appointing  power,  because  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  appoint- 
ment at  once  displaces  such  officers,  without  any  previous  act  of  removal. 
There  was  no  such  thing  as  a  distinct  official  act  of  removal.  Hence  it 
was  manifest,  that  whoever  held  the  power  of  appointment  held  also  the 
power  of  removah  And  as  it  was  the  president  and  senate,  not  the  pre- 
sident alone,  who  had  the  power  of  appointment,  they  must,  according 
to  the  construction  of  the  constitution,  hold  the  power  of  removal. 

The  decision  of  1789,  he  said,  had  been  followed  by  a  strange  anomaly, 
showing  that  it  did  not  rest  on  a  just  principle.  The  natural  connection 
between  the  appointing  power  and  the  removing  power,  had  always  led 
the  president  to  bring  about  a  removal  by  the.  process  of  a  new  appoint- 
ment. But  the  senate  sometimes  rejected  the  new  nomination.  What 
then  became  of  the  old  incumbent  ?  "Was  he  out  of  office  ?  or  was  he 
still  in?  He  had  not  been  turned  out  by  any  exercise  of  the  power  of 
appointment,  for  no  appointment  had  been  made.  He  had  not  been 
removed  by  any  distinct  and  separate  act  of  removal,  for  no  such  act  had 
been  performed  or  attempted.  Those,  therefore,  who  maintained  that 
the  power  of  removal  existed  in  the  president  alone  were  driven  to  very 
near  absurdity.  They  were  forced  to  the  necessity  of  holding  that  the 
removal  had  been  accomplished  by  the  mere  nomination  of  a  successor, 
so  that  the  removing  power  was  made  incident,  not  to  the  appointing 
power,  but  to  a  part  of  it,  the  nominating  power.  The  nomination, 
though  rendered  null  and  void  in  its  main  object  by  the  non-concurrence 
of  the  senate,  was  nevertheless  held  to  be  good  and  valid  to  bring  about 
that  which  resulted  from  an  appointment,  that  is,  the  removal  of  the 
person  actually  in  office.  In  other  words,  the  nomination  produced  the 
consequences  of  an  appointment,  or  some  of  them,  though  it  were  itself 
no  appointment,  and  effected  no  appointment.  This  appeared  to  him 
any  thing  but  sound  reasoning  and  just  construction. 

Again :  a  nomination  to  an  office  already  filled,  had  sometimes  been 
sent  to  the  senate,  and,  before  it  had  been  acted  on,  withdrawn.  What 
was  the  effect  of  such  a  nomination  ?  If  a  mere  nomination  turned  out 
an  incumbent,  then  he  was  out,  whatever  became  of  the  nomination. 
But  the  president  had  acted  upon  the  idea  that  a  nomination  made,  and 
afterwards  withdrawn,  did  not  remove  the  incumbent.  Even  this  was 
not  the  end  of  the  inconsistencies  to  which  the  prevailing  doctrine  had 
led.  Nominations  to  offices  already  filled  had  been  before  the  senate 
for  months,  the  incumbents  continuing  to  discharge  their  official   duties 


523  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

until  their  successors  liad  been  confirmed,  and  received  their  commissions* 
So  that,  if  the  nomination  were  confirmed,  the  nomination  itself  made  no 
removal.  The  removal,  then,  waited  to  be  brought  about  by  the  appoint- 
ment ;  but  if  the  nomination  should  be  rejected,  then  the  nomination 
itself,  it  was  contended,  had  effected  the  removal.  Who  could  defend 
opinions  which  led  to  such  results  ? 

We  subjoin  the  substance  of  some  of  the  remarks  of  Mr.  White,  of 
Tennessee,  on  the  practice  of  removing  from  office  on  the  ground  of 
party  differences,  or,  as  it  is  sometimes  expressed,  of  "  punishing  men 
for  their  political  opinions."  Mr.  AVhite  was  a  friend  and  supporter  of 
the  administration,  and  was  one  of  the  committee,  who,  in  1826,  reported 
the  bill  similar  to  the  one  now  under  consideration,  and  entitled,  "  A 
bill  to  secure  in  office  the  faithful  collectors  and  disbursers  of  the  reve- 
nue, and  to  displace  defaulters."  That  bill,  like  the  present,  contained 
the  provision  for  the  repeal  of  the  first  and  second  sections  of  the  act 
of  1820.  These  sections  had  been  intended  to  insure  fidelity  in  account- 
ing officers,  by  making  them  periodically  accountable. 

But  in  1826,  the  committee  believed,  said  Mr.  White,  that  in  the 
struggles  for  place  and  power  between  parties,  evils  not  foreseen  were 
apprehended.  All  these  officers  going  out  at  the  end  of  every  four  years, 
and  being  entirely  dependent  on  the  will  of  the  president  for  the  renewal 
of  their  commissions,  might  induce  them  to  look  more  to  their  own  situa- 
tion than  to  the  public  welfare,  and  to  conform  their  opinions  to  the 
wishes  of  the  president.  If  he  was  a  candidate  for  reelection  himself, 
they  would  be  likely  to  vote  for  him ;  or,  if  one  of  his  friends  was  the 
candidate,  they  would  vote  for  him,  although  they  might  believe  the  pub- 
lic interest  would  be  most  promoted  by  the  election  of  his  opponent. 
It  was  no  answer  to  this  argument  to  say  it  cast  reproach  upon  these  offi- 
cers to  suppose  their  opinions  would  be  thus  surrendered.  Was  it,  he 
asked,  a  reproach  to  say  that  they  were  men,  and  must  have  the  means 
of  living  ?  When  a  man  obtained  one  of  these  offices,  he  and  his  family 
became  dependent  on  the  quarter's  salary  for  food  and  clothing.  To  be 
deprived  of  the  office,  was  to  be  deprived  of  his  present  means  of  obtain- 
ing an  honest  livelihood.  Under  such  circumstances,  it  was  likely  he 
would  not  give  his  judgment  fair  play,  but  would  conform  his  opinion  to 
that  of  the  man  who  had  his  all  in  his  power ;  or,  if  he  had  formed  an 
unbiased  opinion  of  the  merits  of  opposing  candidates,  he  might  not 
have  the  fortitude  to  express  it,  either  in  his  conversation  or  by  his  vote. 
The  probability  was,  that  he  would  soon  lose  that  manly  independence 
BO  essential  to  the  preservation  of  a  free  government. 

But  this  influence  extended,  he  said,  to  all  the  family  connections  of 
this  vast  array  of  officers — an  influence  increased  by  the  fact  of  his 


BRANCH  MINT.  629 

being  a  public  officer,  being  presumed  to  be  a  better  judge,  in  that  situa- 
tion, of  the  fitness  of  a  presidential  candidate,  than  if  he  \\ere  a  private 
man.  Hence,  in  1826,  he,  as  a  member  of  the  committee,  came  to  tho 
conclusion  that  it  was  dangerous  to  leave  so  vast  a  power  in  the  hands 
of  the  executive;  and  through  their  chairman,  (Mr.  Benton)  expressed 
that  opinion  to  the  world.  The  change  of  administration  had  not 
changed  his  views.  His  opinions  were  not  controlled  by  party  consid- 
erations. 

Under  the  laws  as  they  then  were,  office-hunting  would  become  a 
science.  Men  would  come  to  Washington,  to  get  one  set  turned  out  and 
another  put  in  by  misrepresentations  and  stratagem.  This  practice  the 
proposed  law  would  discourage.  It  would  also  check  the  thirst  for  office ; 
because,  if  a  man  was  removed,  his  fault,  whether  incapacity,  dishonesty, 
or  intemperance,  would  be  exposed.  And  if  a  man  should  be  injured, 
he  would  know  how  and  by  whom,  and  he  could  vindicate  his  character, 
not  by  a  controversy  with  the  president,  but  against  him  by  whose  false- 
hood the  president  had  been  misled.  It  would  also  secure  honest  offi- 
cers with  honest  political  opinions.  No  president  would  remove  an  offi- 
cer for  a  mere  diflference  in  politics,  when  he  knew  this  reason  was  to  be 
put  on  record,  and  to  remain  through  all  time. 

We  very  much  mistake  if  these  sentiments  do  not  meet  with  a  cordial 
response  in  every  intelligent,  unprejudiced  mind.  The  practice  of  dis- 
pensing rewards  and  punishments  according  to  services  rendered  or 
refused  to  the  successful  candidate  for  the  executive  chair,  naturally 
tends  to  destroy  the  independence  of  those  who  seek  to  secure  a  partici- 
pation in  the  patronage  which  it  has  to  bestow.  If  a  man  depends  for 
his  bread  upon  his  political  opinions,  there  is  no  assurance  that  these 
opinions  will  be  honestly  and  fearlessly  expressed.  And  in  proportion 
as  the  elective  franchise  is  corrupted,  will  the  tenure  of  our  liberties  be 
impaired. 

An  act  was  passed  at  this  session  establishing  three  branches  of  the 
mint :  one  at  New  Orleans  for  coining  gold  and  silver  ;  one  at  Charlotte, 
in  North  Carolina,  and  one  at  Dahlonega,  in  Georgia.  On  the  question 
of  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  creating  these  mints,  Mr.  Hill  spoke  in 
opposition  to  it,  Tf  he  believed  it  would  be  the  means  of  displacing  a 
paper  circulation  by  one  of  specie,  he  would  consent  to  some  expense  to 
effect  the  object.  But  he  believed  the  quantity  of  gold  to  be  coined  at 
those  places  was  insufficient  to  justify  the  expense  necessary  to  erect 
these  establishments  and  to  keep  them  in  operation.  The  mint  at  Phila- 
delphia had  been  found  ample  for  all  the  wants  of  the  country.  The 
senator  from  Missouri  had  declared  the  system  of  mints  to  be  a  part  of 
the  hard  money  system,  and  supposed  hard  money  could  not  be  difi"used 


530  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

through  the  west  and  south  if  these  mints  were  not  established.  He 
(Mr.  H.)  also  was  a  friend  of  a  hard  money  currency;  but  it  should  be 
recollected  that  banks  were  the  natural  enemies  of  a  hard  money  circu- 
lation. Small  bank  notes  would  destroy  the  circulation  of  hard  money. 
He  objected  also  to  the  bill,  that  it  would  increase  the  executive  patron- 
age to  the  amount  of  at  least  one  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  Benton  viewed  the  question  as  one  of  currency.  Not  less  than 
six  hundred  banks  in  the  union  were  employed  in  coining  paper  money. 
It  was  time  that  this  miserable  trash  should  be  utterly  proscribed.  He 
wished  to  see  the  country  return  to  that  species  of  currency  which 
existed  forty-five  years  ago,  when  the  federal  revenues  were  paid  in 
gold  and  silver.  The  gold  bill  passed  at  the  last  session  was  the  first 
step  towards  a  sound  circulating  medium — gold  and  silver.  This  was 
a  question  of  paper  on  one  side,  and  of  gold  on  the  other. 

The  bill  was  supported  farther  by  Messrs.  Calhoun,  Waggaman, 
Erown,  of  N.  C,  and  King, of  Georgia;  and  opposed  by  Messrs.  Clay, 
Freiinghuysen,  and  others.  It  was  passed  by  ayes,  24,  against  19  noes 
In  the  house,  ayes,  115  ;  noes,  60. 


CHAPTER  LI. 

FRENCH     SPOLIATIONS. PROSPECT    OF    WAR    WITH     FRANCE. DEBATE    ON 

THE    LOST    FORTIFICATION    BILL. 

The  delay  of  the  French  government  in  making  provision  for  the 
debt  due  the  United  States  under  the  treaty  of  1831,  has  been  already 
mentioned.  The  chambers  having  repeatedly  refused  to  make  the 
necessary  appropriations,  the  president,  in  his  annual  message  of  Decem- 
ber, 1834,  suggested,  as  a  measure  of  redress,  reprisals  upon  French 
commerce,  in  case  the  chambers  should  again  adjourn  without  making 
provision  for  the  indemnity.  The  subject  was  in  each  house  referred  to 
the  committee  on  foreign  relations. 

On  the  6th  of  January,  1835,  the  senate  committee  made  a  report 
concluding  with  a  resolution,  that  it  was  inexpedient  to  pass  such  a  law  dur- 
ing the  present  session  of  the  chambers.  It  was  thought  most  proper 
to  await  the  issue  of  the  new  appeal  to  that  body.  The  act,  though 
contingent  on  that  issue,  would  imply  a  distrust  of  the  French  govern- 
ment, and  by  being  construed  into  a  menace,  might  prevent  the  passage 


FRENCH    SPOLIATIONS.  631 

of  the  bill.  This  opinion  was  afterward  strengthened  by  that  of  Mr 
Livingston,  our  minister  at  Paris,  who  in  a  despatch  to  the  secretary  of 
state,  dated  January  11,  advised  the  same  course. 

On  the  7th  of  February,  1835,  in  compliance  with  a  request  of  the 
house,  the  president  communicated  to  that  body  extracts  from  despatches 
received  from  Mr.  Livingston  at  Paris,  representing  the  passage  of  the 
bill  by  the  chambers  as  improbable.  The  house  was  surprised  by  a 
motion  from  Mr.  Adams,  that  the  message  and  extracts  be  referred  to 
the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  with  instructions  to  report  on  the 
subject  forthwith.  The  papers  were  read,  and  after  an  animated  debate, 
were  referred  without  instructions.  The  singular  motion  to  require,  on 
a  subject  so  important,  an  immediate  report,  which  is  usually  asked  for 
only  OQ  subjects  already  well  understood,  induced  the  belief  that  it  was 
intended  to  propose  a  speedy  resort  to  reprisals,  if  not  a  declaration  of 
war  itself.  He  only  wished,  however,  as  he  afterwards  explained  his 
remarks,  that  the  house  should  avail  itself  of  all  the  time  it  had  remaining 
in  deliberating  on  the  posture  of  affairs,  as  the  measure  of  the  president, 
or  some  other  which  the  national  honor  might  require,  might  possibly 
eventuate  in  war.  The  senate  had  deliberated,  and  determined  to  dodge 
the  question :  the  house  might  come  to  a  like  conclusion. 

In  the  house,  on  the  27th  of  February,  the  committee  made  a  report, 
and  submitted  three  resolutions:  (1.)  That  it  was  incompatible  with  our 
rights  and  honor  farther  to  negotiate  in  relation  to  the  treaty,  and  that 
the  house  would  insist  on  its  execution.  (2.)  Discharging  the  committee 
from  the  farther  consideration  of  the  subject.  (3.)  That  contingent 
preparation  ought  to  be  made  to  meet  any  emergency  growing  out  of 
our  relations  with  France.  The  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted, 
after  the  first  had  been  modified  by  striking  out  the  first  part  of  it  which 
declared  against  farther  negotiation,  leaving  that  optional  with  the 
president.  This  modification  was  the  result  of  a  motion  of  Mr.  Adams. 
The  debate  on  this  question  was  not  one  of  a  party  character.  Mr. 
Adams  went  farther  in  support  of  the  measures  proposed  by  the  presi- 
dent, than  others  of  the  same  party,  and  most  of  the  administration 
members.  It  may  be  inferred  from  the  general  tenor  of  the  debate, 
that  if  the  chambers  again  adjourned  without  making  the  appropriation, 
some  retaliatory  measure  would  thereafter  receive  the  sanction  of  the 
house. 

On  the  25th  of  February,  the  president  communicated  to  the  senate 
fresh  correspondence  between  the  two  governments,  which  was  referred 
to  the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  who  reported,  the  3d  of  March, 
that  nothing  in  the  correspondence  gave  cause  for  changing  the  position 
which  the  senate  had  taken  on  the  subject:     It  appeared  that  the  king 


632  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  France  had  been  greatly  irritated  by  the  president's  recommendation 
of  reprisals,  and  by  what  he  conceived  an  imputation  to  him  of  bad  faith. 
He  recalled  his  minister  at  Washington,  and  directed  the  substitution 
of  a  charge  d'affaires;  and  passports  were  tendered  to  Mr.  Livingston 
at  Paris.  Mr.  L.,  however,  remained,  awaiting  the  orders  of  his  gov- 
ernment. These,  had  been  transmitted,  and  required  him  to  return  to 
the  United  States  ;  and  in  the  event  of  the  passage  of  the  bill,  to  leave 
a  charge  d'affaires. 

The  passage  of  the  bill  by  the  French  chambers  was  supposed  to  have 
been  retarded  by  the  injudicious  publication  of  extracts  from  Mr.  Rives' 
correspondence,  boasting  that  he  had  overmatched  the  French  ministers 
in  the  negotiation,  and  also  of  certain  portions  of  Mr.  Livingston's  cor- 
respondence, equally  offensive,  he  having  suggested  that  the  French  gov- 
ernment might  be  influenced  by  fear.  These,  and  especially  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  president's  message  of  a  law  authorizing  reprisals, 
which  was  regarded  as  peculiarly  offensive  to  the  dignity  of  France, 
were  made  the  pretext  for  delaying  justice.  In  April,  the  bill  was 
passed,  by  the  strong  vote  of  289  to  137.  Before  its  passage,  however, 
it  received  an  amendment — intended,  probably,  as  a  salvo  to  their 
wounded  pride — providing,  that  certain  payments  should  be  made  only 
after  a  satisfactory  explanation  or  apology  as  to  the  message  of  the  presi- 
dent should  have  been  received  by  the  French  government. 

Before  leaving  Paris,  (April  25,  1835,)  Mr.  Livingston,  with  the  ap- 
probation of  the  president,  addressed  a  letter  to  the  duke  de  Broglie, 
with  the  view  of  satisfying  that  government  in  regard  to  the  required 
explanation.  The  form  of  our  government,  and  the  functions  of  the 
president  were  such,  that  no  foreign  power  had  a  right  to  ask  for  ex- 
planations of  any  communication  he  might  make  to  congress.  Mr.  L. 
said  there  was  no  just  ground  for  the  charge,  that  the  message  impeached 
the  good  faith  of  his  majesty's  government.  As  to  the  measure  of  redress 
proposed  in  the  message,  it  was  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  practice 
of  nations ;  it  was  necessary,  and  not  objectionable,  unless  couched  in 
offensive  language.  Mr.  L.  cited  a  case.  "While  France  and  England 
were  making  aggressions  upon  our  commerce,  congress  passed  a  law  de- 
claring that  if  these  aggressions  did  not  cease,  we  should  hold  no  inter- 
course with  them.  But  neither  government  complained  of  the  act  as  a 
threat,  or  thought  it  dishonorable  to  deliberate  under  its  pressure. 
France  was  even  induced  to  accept  its  condition,  and  repealed  her  Berlin 
and  Milan  decrees. 

Although  war  was  not  generally  apprehended,  yet  as  preparation  for 
such  an  emergency  might  become  necessary  before  the  next  meeting  of 
congress,  on  the  last  night  of   the  session,  March  3,  1835,  and  without 


PROSPECT    OF    WAR    WITH    FRANCE.  633 

any  previous  intimation,  as  was  alleged,  an  amendment  to  the  fortifica- 
tion bill  was  offered  in  the  house,  proposing  to  add  $3,000,000,  to  be  ex- 
pended under  the  direction  of  the  president,  if  he  should  deem  it  neces- 
sary, for  the  defense  of  the  country.  The  amendment  was  adopted  by 
the  houge ;  but  it  was  opposed  in  the  senate  as  conferring  on  the  presi- 
dent unlimited  military  power,  and  rejected,  29  to  16.  The  house  in- 
sisted on  its  amendment ;  and  the  senate  adhered  to  its  disagreement, 
by  a  vote  of  29  to  17.  A  committee  of  conference  was  appointed.  In- 
stead of  three  millions,  there  was  inserted,  $300,000  for  arming  the  forti- 
fications, and  $500,000  for  repairing  and  equipping  the  ships  of  war. 
The  senate  awaited  the  action  of  the  house ;  and,  at  eleven  o'clock  at 
night,  sent  a  message  to  that  body,  which,  for  some  cause  not  stated,  did 
not  act  upon,  it :  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  whole  bill  was  lost ;  and  not 
a  dollar  for  fortifications  of  any  kind  was  appropriated ! 

The  loss  of  this  bill,  became,  at  the  next  session,  a  subject  of  exciting 
debate  in  both  houses ;  each  house,  or  rather,  members  of  each  house, 
charging  it  to  the  neglect  or  dereliction  of  the  other.  In  the  house  of 
representatives,  particularly,  the   debate  was  criminating  and  virulent. 

The  explanation  of  Mr.  Livingston  failed  to  satisfy  the  French  gov- 
ernment ;  and  the  bill  which  had  passed  the  chamber  of  deputies,  after- 
wards received  the  sanction  of  the  chamber  of  peers  and  the  king  :  and 
no  farther  steps  were  taken  for  the  payment  of  the  indemnity. 

The  president,  in  his  next  annual  message,  December,  1H35,  again 
presented  the  subject  to  congress.  He  vindicated  the  message  of  1834, 
as  giving  no  just  cause  of  offense ;  and  although  he  firmly  maintained 
the  ground  he  had  taken,  his  language  was  of  a  pacific  character. 
Advices,  he  said,  were  daily  expected  from  France,  which  would  be 
promptly  communicated.  Accordingly,  on  the  18th  of  January,  1836, 
a  message,  accompanied  by  the  official  correspondence  between  the  two 
governments,  was  communicated  to  congress ;  from  which  it  appeared, 
that  France  still  required,  as  a  condition  of  paying  the  indemnity,  an 
apology,  which  the  president  considered  "  incompatible  with  the  honor 
and  independence  of  the  United  States."  And  he  says  :  "  This  preten- 
sion (that  of  interfering  in  the  communications  between  the  different 
branches  of  our  government)  is  rendered  the  more  unreasonable  by  the 
fact,  that  the  substance  of  the  required  explanation  has  been  repeatedly 
and  voluntarily  given  before  it  was  insisted  on  as  a  condition — a  condi- 
tion the  more  humiliating,  because  it  is  demanded  as  the  equivalent  of  a 
pecuniary  consideration." 

In  this  state  of  affairs,  the  president  recommended,  as  a  just  measure 
af  retaliation,  the  prohibition  of  French  vessels  and  French  products 
from  our  ports,  or  the  adoption  of  some  other  proper  remedy.     The 


634  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

same  message  informed  congress,  that  France  was  preparing  a  fleet  des- 
tined for  our  seas.  This,  however,  would  not  deter  the' government  from 
the  discharge  of  its  duties. 

Mr.  Buchanan  expressed  his  entire  approbation  of  the  general  tone 
and  spirit  of  the  message,  and  his  disappointment  at  the  non-acceptance, 
by  France,  of  the  president's  explanation.  He  hoped,  however,  that,  on 
the  receipt  of  this  message,  the  French  government  would  reconsider  the 
determination.  He  had  expected  a  message  of  a  stronger  character. 
But  the  recommendation  was  merely  the  exclusion  of  French  ships  and 
productions  from  our  ports.  The  wines  and  silks  had,  for  the  four 
years  since  the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  been  admitted  on  the  favorable 
terms  stipulated  in  the  treaty.  The  withdrawal  of  these  advantages  w.^s 
the  mildest  measure  that  could  have  been  recommended. 

Mr.  Calhoun  said  he  had  heard  the  message,  not  with  the  agreeable 
sensations  of  the  senator  from  Pennsylvania,  but  with  profound  regret. 
He  had  apprehended  no  war ;  but  if  the  recommendations  of  the  presi- 
dent were  adopted,  it  would  be  almost  inevitable.  The  president's 
course  throughout  had  been  such  as  tended  to  produce  a  conflict  between 
the  two  nations ;  and  if  it  should  come,  our  government  would  be  the 
responsible  party.  He  believed  the  king  was  disposed  to  pay  our  claims  ; 
but  the  president  published  to  the  world  Mr.  Rives'  boastful  communi- 
cation, which  caused  the  chambers  to  hesitate.  Knowing  the  appropria- 
tion depended  upon  the  chamber,  and  without  waiting  for  its  action,  the 
bill  was  drawn  for  the  first  instalment  before  it  could  possibly  be  paid. 
A  protest  and  much  irritation  followed.  Next  came  the  president's 
message,  asking  for  authority  to  issue  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  if 
the  appropriation  were  not  made — a  measure  that  naturally  leads  to 
war.  The  appropriation  was  made,  but  with  the  condition  which  caused 
the  present  difficulty.  The  honor  of  France  did  not  require  it ;  but  the 
ministry  were  obliged  to  accept  it  to  save  the  bill.  We  should  not  for- 
get that  the  acts  of  our  executive  had  caused  its  insertion.  There  was 
some  hope  that  the  last  annual  message  would  be  favorably  received  in 
France.  Why  then  this  message  recommending  preparations  and  non- 
intercourse  before  we  had  heard  how  the  message  had  been  received  ? 
In  a  war,  France  could  injure  us  more  than  we  could  her.  If  war  came, 
we  must  declare  it.  This  was  a  reason  why  France  should  prepare  for 
the  worst.  .  Such  preparation  ought  fairly  to  be  considered,  not  as  a 
menace,  but  as  a  precautionary  measure  induced  by  our  acts. 

Mr.  Cuthbert,  in  reply,  alluding  to  the  patriotic  course  of  Mr.  Cal- 
houn in  congress  in  relation  to  the  war  of  1812,  said:  "The  senator 
from  South  Carolina  says,  if  we  arm,  war  must  follow.  We  are  told  we 
dare  not  do  so.     That  voice  which  twenty-four  years  ago  lighted  the 


DEBATE   ON    THE    LOST    FORTIFICATION   BILL.  635 

fires  of  confidence  and  patriotism  in  the  hearts  of  all  who  heard  him,  now 
humbles  itself,  and  would  humble  this  senate,  before  a  foreign  govern- 
ment. Dare  not  arm  !  Shame  !  Shame  !  that  such  a  sentiment  should 
have  been  uttered  here." 

Mr.  Buchanan  repeated  the  belief  that  the  message  tended  to  peace 
and  not  war.  He  regretted  to  hear  it  said  that,  if  war  should  come,  we 
would  be  the  authors  of  it.  He  deprecated  the  effect  which  so  potent  a 
voice  would  produce  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  He  was  glad 
that  this  was  not  the  sentiment  of  either  house,  both  houses  having  de- 
clared that  the  treaty  must  be  maintained.  It  was  also  at  war  with  the 
feelings  and  opinions  of  the  American  people.  Whilst  he  believed  the 
message  would  prov6  to  be  the  olive  branch  of  peace,  it  was  our  duty 
to  prepare  for  the  worst.  Whilst  a  powerful  fleet  was  riding  along  our 
southern  coast  in  a  menacing  attitude,  we  should  not  sit  here  and  with- 
hold from  the  president  the  means  of  placing  our  country  in  a  state  of 
defense. 

On  the  12th  of  January,  1836,  in  the  senate,  a  resolution,  offered  the 
day  before  by  Mr.  Benton,  was  taken  up.  It  proposed  to  apply  the 
surplus  revenue  and  the  dividends  of  stock  receivable  from  the  bank  of 
the  United  States,  to  the  general  defense  and  permanent  security  of  the 
country ;  and  called  on  the  president  for  information  of  the  probable 
amount  required  for  sundry  specific  objects.  Although  these  objects 
were  of  a  general  and  permanent  nature,  Mr.  Benton  considered  the 
large  French  fleet  near  our  coast  as  furnishing  an  additional  reason  for 
adopting  his  proposition.  The  present  defenseless  condition  he  charged 
to  the  loss  of  the  fortification  bill  at  the  last  session,  for  which,  he  said, 
the  senate  was  responsible.  The  three  million  appropriation  had  been 
lost  by  the  opposition  of  the  senate,  which  had  carried  with  it  the  whole 
bill,  containing  thirteen  specific  appropriations  for  works  of  defense.  The 
senate  had  also  opposed  a  motion  made  in  pursuance  of  a  report  of  the 
military  committee  to  insert  $500,000  for  the  construction  and  arming 
of  fortifications.  In  view  of  this  want  of  preparation  it  was,  that  a 
French  paper  had  assigned  as  a  reason  for  the  advance  of  the  squadron 
upon  us,  that  "  America  would  have  no  force  capable  of  being  opposed 
to  it."  He  did  not  believe  there  would  be  war,  but  he  went  for  national 
defense,  because  that  policy  was  right  in  itself.  We  were  in  a  humiliat- 
ing and  defenseless  state,  and  our  honor  required  of  us  the  work  of 
national  defense.  Above  all,  it  was  the  only  manly  way  of  letting 
France  know  that  she  had  committed  a  mistake  in  sending  this  fleet 
upon  us. 

Messrs.  Leigh,  Goldsborough,  and  Webster,  replied  to  Mr.  Benton, 
each  of  whom  gave  a  history  of  the  "  lost  fortification  bill,"  and  all  con- 


636  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

curred  in  the  following  facts :  The  bill  came  to  the  senate  from  the 
house,  where  such  bills  originate.  It  contained  no  special  appropriation 
indicating  an  apprehension  of  a  collision  with  France.  It  was  referred 
to  the  committee  on  finance,  and  reported  with  amendments  proposing 
an  increase  of  appropriations.  It  passed  the  senate  the  24th  of  Feb- 
ruary, one  whole  week  before  the  close  of  the  session,  and  went  to  the 
house,  where  it  remained  until  the  last  night  of  the  session  without 
action  upon  it,  and  without  any  notice  having  been  given  to  the  senate 
that  any  thing  new  or  important  was  to  be  proposed.  The  senate  com- 
menced its  evening  session  at  5  o'clock ;  and  not  until  after  that  hour 
was  it  returned  to  the  senate,  when  it  came  with  the  three  million  appro- 
priation, as  a  contingent  fund,  without  any  specification,  which  the  presi- 
dent might  expend  for  defense  just  when  and  where  he  pleased  ;  thus 
virtually  investing  him  with  the  power  to  determine  the  question  of  war 
or  peace.  The  senate  disagreed  to  the  amendment,  and  returned  the 
bill  to  the  other  house,  which  insisted  on  the  amendment,  and  quickly 
sent  it  back.  The  senate  adhered  to  its  disagreement.  A  committee 
of  conference  was  agreed  to.  The  senate's  members  of  this  committee 
left  the  chamber  fifteen  minutes  before  eleven,  and  returned  fifteen  or 
twenty  minutes  after  eleven,  allowing  ample  time  to  act  upon  the  report 
of  the  committee  of  conference,  even  though  the  session  had  terminated 
at  midnight.  It  was  agreed  in  conference  to  add,  in  specific  terms, 
$500,000  for  the  naval  service,  and  $300,000  for  fortifications.  The 
senate  waited  some  hours  for  the  bill,  and  then  sent  a  message  remind- 
ing the  house  of  the  conference :  but  no  answer  came.  The  committee 
of  the  house  who  had  the  bill  in  possession,  did  not  report  the  result  of 
the  conference,  and  there  the  bill  died. 

But  what  was  preeminently  "  the  great  debate  "  on  the  question  as  to 
the  house  in  which  the  fortification  bill  was  lost,  occurred  in  the  house 
on  the  22d  of  January,  and  on  subsequent  days.  The  speakers  were 
Messrs.  John  Q.  Adams  and  Cambreleng  in  defense  of  the  house,  and 
Mr.  Wise,  of  Virginia,  in  opposition.  The  whole  subject  was  embraced 
in  the  discussion. 

Mr.  Adams  maintained  that  the  objects  of  the  three  million  appro- 
priation were  sufficiently  specific.  It  was  to  be  expended  for  the  ^^  mili- 
tary and  naval  service,  including  fortifications^  and  ordinance^  and 
increase  of  the  navy ;"  and  only  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  necessary 
for  the  defense  of  the  country,  prior  to  the  next  session  of  congress,  an 
interval  of  nine  months,  during  which  no  other  provision  could  have  been 
made  against  a  sudden  invasion.  The  appropriation,  he  said,  had  been 
objected  to  because  it  had  not  been  called  for  by  the  executive;  and 
when  the  executive  had  told  them  it  was  in  accordance  with  his  wishes, 


DEBATE    ON    THE   LOST   FORTIFICATION   BILL.  637 

the  objection  was,  that  it  was  approved  by  him  ;  and  the  supporters  of 
the  appropriation  were  charged  with  man-worship.  He  had  not  approved 
the  measures  recommended  by  the  president,  of  issuing  letters  of  marque 
and  reprisal,  nor  of  commercial  restriction  ;  neither  had  the  house  ap- 
proved them ;  but  the  house  and  the  people  had  done  homage  to  the  spirit 
which  htd  urged  the  recommendation  even  of  measures  which  they  did 
not  approve. 

There  were  at  the  last  session,  said  Mr.  A.,  three  systems  of  policy 
to  be  pursued  with  regard  to  the  controversy  with  France :  first,  the 
system  of  the  president ;  second,  that  of  the  senate,  to  do  nothing  ;  and 
third,  that  of  the  house,  which  was  difi'erent  from  both  the  preceding. 
It  had  been  a  subject  of  ardent  deliberation  and  debate  during  the  last 
week  of  the  session ;  and  their  resolutions  were  adopted  only  the  day 
before  the  last  of  the  session.  He  gave  a  history  of  the  action  of  the 
house  upon  the  fortification  bill,  and  charged  its  death  to  the  senatorial 
vote  to  adhere.  He  also  charged  the  senate  with  having  manifested  bad 
temper  both  to  the  president  and  to  the  house  of  representatives, 

Mr.  Wise  acquitted  both  houses  of  the  responsibility  of  defeating  the 
fortification  bill  of  the  last  session :  both  were  innocent,  as  he  could 
show  by  the  journal  and  other  testimony ;  both  had  desired  the  passage 
of  the  bill.  And  he  then  proceeded  to  show  that  Mr.  Cambreleng  was 
either  wholly,  or  with  others  of  his  party,  chargeable  with  the  loss  of 
that  bill.  Mr.  C.  had  after  the  close  of  the  preceding  session,  given  as 
a  reason  for  his  not  reporting  to  the  house  the  result  of  the  conference 
between  the  two  houses,  that,  before  the  committee  were  able  to  report, 
the  hour  of  twelve  had  arrived,  when,  in  the  opinion  of  many  members, 
the  constitutional  term  of  the  house  ceased,  and  they  had  no  right  to 
vote;  and  also  that  there  had  been  no  quorum  present,  as  appeared  from 
the  votes  of  the  house,  from  the  time  of  the  return  of  the  committee  till 
the  adjournment,  after  three  o'clock. 

Mr.  W.  referred  to  the  journal  of  the  last  session,  showing  that  seve- 
ral votes  had  been  taken  after  the  return  of  the  committee,  and  after 
twelve  o'clock,  when  a  quorum  was  present.  Among  those  who  voted 
knowing  that  hour  to  have  passed,  were  some  who  afterwards  excused 
themselves  from  voting,  for  the  alleged  reason  that  the  constitutional 
term  of  the  house  had  expired.  Various  subjects  had  been  acted  on  by 
a  quorum  after  twelve  o'clock ;  Mr.  Cambreleng  participating  therein. 
The  want  of  a  quorum,  therefore,  he  said,  could  not  have  prevented 
action  on  the  fortification  bill.  After  it  was  notorious  that  the  hour 
was  passed,  a  vote  to  adjourn  was  negatived,  103  to  15,  Mr.  C.  voting  in 
the  negative,  showing  that  he  had  no  conscientious  scruples  against 
deliberating  after  midnight.      Only  three  less  than  a  quorum  voted  on 


638  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  adjournment ;  and  to  his  certain  knowledge  there  were  more  than 
three  present  who  did  not  vote;  so  that  Mr.  C.  could  easily  have  com- 
manded a  quorum  if  he  had  desired  to  make  his  report  of  the  committee 
of  conferees.  A  report  in  relation  to  a  national  foundry  was  after  this 
received  and  acted  on  ;  and  nine  communications  from  executive  depart- 
ments were  laid  before  the  house.  « 

While  thus  acting,  said  Mr.  "W.,  the  message  of  the  senate  came, 
respectfully  reminding  the  house  of  the  report  of  the  committee  of  con- 
ference. Whereupon  Mr.  Camhrcleng,  chairman  of  that  committee, 
stated  that  he  declined  to  report,  on  the  ground  that,  from  the  vote  on 
granting  compensation  to  Robert  P.  Letcher,  which  vote  was  decided  at 
the  time  the  committee  returned,  it  was  ascertained  that  a  quorum  was 
not  present ;  and  farther,  that  the  constitutional  term  of  the  house  had 
expired.  The  house  had  been  waiting  for  the  report ;  and  this  was  the 
first  intimation  that  none  was  to  be  made.  On  the  Cumberland  road 
bill,  there  were  174  votes — 53  more  than  a  quorum.  Of  the  members 
voting,  87  were  Yan  Buren  men,  and  87  opposition  and  for  White. 
Soon  after,  on  the  Letcher  resolution,  only  113  voted  ;  33  Van  Buren; 
opposition  and  for  White,  80.  What  became  of  these  54  missing  votes  ? 
There  were  more  than  twenty  present  who  voted,  or  refused,  according 
to  circumstances,  or  the  wishes  of  party  leaders.  On  one  motion  to 
adjourn,  of  the  87  Van  Buren  men,  only  41  voted;  not  voting  and 
absent,  54;  while  of  the  opposition  and  the  friends  of  White,  77  voted. 
On  another  motion  to  adjourn,  39  Van  Buren  men  voted,  and  72  oppo- 
sition and  for  White.  Tliis  desertion  Mr.  W.  believed  to  be  designed ; 
and  he  mentioned  several  facts  which  strengthened  this  belief. 

Mr.  W.  also  said  there  was  design  in  withholding  a  knowledge  of  the 
president's  wishes  in  relation  to  the  three  million  appropriation.  A  few 
knew  it,  and  though  chairman  of  the  principal  committees,  they  did  not 
make  it  known  even  to  their  committees,  much  less  to  the  house.  It  was 
whispered  to  a  few  others,  who  were  told  "  not  to  say  any  thing  about 
it."  And  said  Mr.  Wise  :  "  You,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  I  charge  with  the 
guilt  of  that  fact !  "  He  here  read  a  written  statement  to  this  effect  from 
Luke  Lea,  a  member  from  Tennessee,  corroborated  by  Mr.  Bunch,  of  the 
same  state.  Mr,  Polk,  the  speaker,  was  at  that  time  chairman  of  the 
committee  of  ways  and  means.  Two  members  had  hesitated  to  vote  for 
the  three  million  appropriation  unasked  for  by  the  president.  Mr.  P. 
having  been  asked  by  one  of  them,  said  the  president  desired  it,  "  but 
you  need  not  say  any  thing  about  it."  The  speaker,  on  being  directly 
interrogated  by  Mr.  Wise,  confessed  that  Mr.  Lea's  statement  was  sub- 
stantially true,  but  he  did  not  recollect  having  enjoined  secrecy. 

The  speech  of  Mr.  Wise  was  very  vehement,  and  of  great  length,  em- 
bracing many  topics  not  included  in  the  foregoing  sketch. 


DEBATE    ON    THE    LOST     FORTIFICATION    BILL.  639 

Mr.  Cambreleug  replied,  contending  that  there  had  been  no  quorum 
after  the  return  of  the  committee  ;  and,  in  confirmation  of  his  statement, 
he  read  from  the  journal.  He  had  voted  several  times  against  adjourn- 
ment, anxious  to  get  a  quorum,  but  no  quorum  voted.  The  business 
preparatory  to  adjournment  was  all  that  was  done  after  the  passage  of 
the  Cumberland  road  bill,  for  which  he  had  voted  before  he  left  the 
house  as  a  member  of  the  conference  committee.  Nothing  was  there- 
after done  but  to  hear  certain  reports,  and  to  send  and  receive  messages  to 
and  from  the  senate  and  the  president.  He  denied  that  the  refusal  to 
vote  was  a  party  measure,  or  that  the  want  of  a  quorum  had  reference 
to  the  fortification  bill,  or  the  three  million  appropriation.  Mr.  C. 
defended  the  proposition  to  place  this  sum  at  the  disposal  of  the  presi- 
dent, and  cited,  as  precedents,  a  large  number  of  similar  instances  under 
the  administrations  of  Washington,  John  Adams,  Jefferson,  and  Madison. 

It  appears  from  the  journals  of  1835,  that  Mr.  Lewis,  one  of  the  com- 
mittee, took  from  Mr.  Cambreleng  the  report  with  the  intention  of  offer- 
ing it;  but  on  counting  the  members,  the  tellers  reported  only  113. 
Several  successive  votes  for  adjournment  showed  the  want  of  a  quorum. 
On  a  motion  to  amend  a  motion  to  inform  the  senate  that  the  house 
was  ready  to  adjourn,  so  as  to  make  it  read,  "  that  the  house  having  no 
quorum,  was  ready  to  adjourn,"  Mr.  Cambreleng  said  there  had  not  been  a 
quorum  for  an  hour  or  two.  Mr.  Reed  said  the  committee  of  conference 
had  agreed  to  a  report,  and  as  a  quorum  was  undoubtedly  present,  it  ought 
to  be  acted  upon.  Tjae  amendment  declared  what  was  not  the  fact : 
there  was  a  quorum  present.  Mr.  Lewis  moved  a  call  of  the  house.  Mr. 
Cambreleng  said  :  I  protest  against  the  right  to  call  the  house.  What 
member  will  answer  to  his  name  ?  ["I  will,  I  will,"  exclaimed  many 
members.]  I  am  as  much  in  favor  (said  Mr.  C.)  of  the  fortification  bill 
as  is  the  gentleman  from  New  Jersey  ;  but  I  say  the  responsibility  of  its 
failure  rests  upon  the  senate,  and  not  upon  us.  The  bill  was  defeated 
by  the  senate.  ["No!"  "No!"  "not  so!"  was  exclaimed  by  many 
voices.]  Mr.  BarriLger  said  the  bill  was  defeated  by  an  intrigue  here  in 
this  house.  If  gentlemen  desired  names,  he  would  give  them.  But  if 
this  was  declined,  he  would  say  that  there  were  members  who  now  sat  in 
their  seats,  and  would  not  answer  to  their  names,  who  did  so  in  consum- 
mation of  the  intrigue.  Mr.  B.  called  for  tellers  on  the  motion.  Ayes, 
56  ;  noes  26 — no  quorum.     The  house  then  adjourned. 

On  the  8th  of  February,  1830,  the  president  informed  congress  that 
the  government  of  Great  Britain  had  offered  its  mediation  for  the  adjust- 
ment of  the  dispute  between  the  United  States  and  France  ;  and  that  he 
had  accepted  it ;  carefully  guarding,  however,  that  point  in  the  contro- 
versy which,  as  it  involved  our  honor  and  independence,  did  not  admit 


640  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN 

of  compromise.  He  therefore  recommended  a  suspension  of  all  retalia- 
tory proceedings  against  France ;  but  again  urged  preparations  for  the 
defense  of  the  seaboard  and  the  protection  of  our  commerce.  On  the 
22d,  followed  another  message,  communicating  the  correspondence 
between  the  secretary  of  state,  (Mr.  Forsyth,)  and  the  British  charge 
d'  affaires,  relative  to  the  mediation,  and  repeating  his  recommendation 
to  provide  for  defense,  in  case  of  the  commencement  of  hostilities  during 
the  recess  of  congress. 

On  the  10th  of  May,  the  president  announced  to  congress  the  pay- 
ment, by  France,  of  the  instalments  due  under  the  treaty  of  indemnity. 


CHAPTER  LII. 

THE    ANTl-SLAVERV    QUESTION. DISCUSSION     IN     CONGRESS. INCENDIARY 

PUBLICATIONS. ATHERTOn's    RESOLUTIONS. 

Among  the  various  excitements  that  have  at  different  times  prevailed 
in  the  United  States,  few  have  been  more  pervading  and  intense  than 
that  which-  was  consequent  upon  the  early  anti-slavery  organizations, 
subsequent  to  the  year  1833,  in  which  the  national  anti-slavery  society 
was  formed.  At  no  time  did  this  excitement  reach  a  higher  tempera- 
ture than  in  the  years  1835  and  1836.  Societies  were  formed  in  all 
the  northern  states ;  in  some  of  them  in  almost  every  county ;  and  in 
some  portions  of  these  states,  in  nearly  every  town.  Alarm  at  this 
movement  was  soon  taken  at  the  south ;  meetings  were  held,  at  which 
the  most  denunciatory  resolutions  against  the  abolitionists  were  adopted  ; 
and  fears  were  expressed  of  a  speedy  dissolution  of  the  union. 

This  expression  of  southern  sentiment  was  responded  to  in  the  north. 
Opposition  meetings  were  held  in  nearly  all  the  large  cities  and  towns 
attended  by  citizens  of  high  standing,  for  the  purpose  of  counteracting 
the  efforts  of  the  abolitionists.  In  numerous  instances  this  opposition 
was  carried  so  far  as  to  break  up  anti-slavery  meetings  by  violence. 
Indeed,  mobs  were  common  occurrences,  and  were  not  unfrequently 
encouraged  or  participated  in  by  eminent  and  respectable  citizens. 

The  great  agency  employed  by  the  abolitionists  which  excited  general 
alarm  at  the  south,  was  that  of  the  press.  An  immense  quantity  of 
anti-slavery  publications  was  scattered  over  the  northern  states ;  and 
the  abolitionists  were  charged  with  sending  them  to  the  south  to  insti- 


THE    ANTI-SLAVERY    QUESTION.  641 

gate  the  slaves  to  violence  and  bloodshed.  Hence  attempts  were  made 
to  suppress  anti-slavery  societies  and  their  publications.  The  "  Eman- 
cipator," published  in  the  city  of  New  York,  was  indicted  by  a  grand 
jury  in  Alabama,  and  a  requisition  by  Governor  Grayle  was  made  upon 
Governor  Marcy  of  the  state  of  New  York,  for  the  surrender  of  the 
publisher,  R.  J.  Williams,  to  be  tried  as  an  offender  against  the  laws 
of  Alabama  concerning  slavery.  Governor  Marcy,  however,  not  being 
able  so  easily  as  Governor  Gayle,  to  construe  Mr.  Williams  into  a 
**  fugitive  from  justice,"  the  demand  was  not  complied  with. 

Another  expedient  resorted  to  was  the  offering  of  rewards  for  offenders. 
A  New  Orleans  paper  contained  an  advertisement  from  a  committee  of 
vigilance  of  a  parish  in  Louisiana,  offering  a  reward  of  $50,000  for  the 
delivery  of  Arthur  Tappan,  a  conspicuous  abolitionist  in  the  city  of 
New  York.  Rewards  also  for  Lewis  Tappan,  and  other  persons,  were 
offered.  Nor  were  offers  confined  to  individuals  and  voluntary  associa- 
tions. By  an  enactment  of  the  legislature  of  the  state  of  Mississippi, 
a  reward  of  $5,000  was  offered  for  the  arrest  and  prosecution  of  any 
person  who  should  be  convicted  of  having  circulated  the  "  Liberator," 
or  any  other  seditious  paper,  pamphlet,  or  letter,  within  that  state.  In 
the  legislatures  of  one  or  two  other  states,  it  is  believed,  similar  propo- 
sitions were  made,  and  carried  through  one  or  both  branches. 

In  the  proceedings  of  the  meetings  held  in  Boston,  Lowell,  New  York, 
Albany,  Philadelphia,  and  other  places,  are  found  expressions  of  sym- 
pathy for  the  south,  and  censures  of  abolitionists,  which  would  receive 
few  votes  in  any  public  meeting  at  the  present  day.  These  anti-aboli- 
tion meetings  were  gratifying  to  the  people  of  the  south.  The  proceed- 
ings of  the  Albany  meeting  were  thus  noticed  by  the  Richmond 
Enquirer  :  "  Amid  these  proceedings,  we  hail  with  delight  the  meeting 
and  resolutions  of  Albany.  They  are  up  to  the  hub.  They  are  in 
perfect  unison  with  the  rights  and  sentiments  of  the  south.  They  are 
divested  of  all  the  metaphysics  and  abstractions  of  the  resolutions  of 
New  York.  They  are  free  from  all  qualifications  and  equivocation — no 
idle  denunciations  of  the  evils  of  slavery — no  pompous  assertions  of  the 
right  of  discussion.  But  they  announce  in  the  most  unqualified  terms, 
that  it  is  a  southern  question,  which  belongs,  under  the  federal  compact, 
exclusively  to  the  south.  They  denounce  all  discussions  upon  it  in  the 
other  states,  which,  from  their  very  nature,  are  calculated  to  '  inflame 
the  public  mind,'  and  put  in  jeopardy  the  lives  and  property  of  their 
fellow-citizens,  as  at  war  with  every  rule  of  moral  duty,  and  every  sug- 
gestion of  humanity ;  and  they  reprobate  the  incendiaries  who  will 
persist  in  carrying  them  on,  '  as  disloyal  to  the  union.'  #  *  *  * 
They  pronounce  these  vile  incendiaries  to  be  '  disturbers  of  the  public 

41 


642  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

peace.'  They  assure  the  south,  *  *  *  'that  the  great  body  of 
the  northern  people  entertain  opinions  similar  to  those  expressed  in 
these  resolutions  ;'  finally,  *  that  we  plight  to  them  our  faith  to  maintain, 
in  practice,  so  far  as  lies  in  our  power,  what  we  have  thus  solemnly 
declared.' 

"  We  hail  this  plighted  faith  to  arrest,  by  '  all  constitutional  and 
legal  means,'  the  movements  of  these  incendiaries.  We  hail  these 
pledges  with  pleasure  ;■  and  should  it  become  necessary,  we  shall  call 
upon  them  to  redeem  tbem  in  good  faith,  and  to  act,  and  to  put  down 
these  disturbers  of  the  peace."  TDiq  manner  in  which  it  was  hoped  these 
pledges  would  be  redeemed,  and  these  disturbers  of  the  peace  would 
be  "  put  down"  was  by  legislative  enactments.  This  is  expressly 
declared  in  the  Whig,  of  the  same  city : 

"  The  Albany  resolutions  are  far  more  acceptable  than  those  of  New 
York.  They  are  unexceptionable  in  their  general  expressions  towards 
the  south,  and  in  their  views  of  the  spirit  and  consequences  of  abolition; 
*  *  *  and  they  omit  any  specific  recognition  of  the  right  of  agita- 
tion. Nothing  is  wanting,  indeed,  but  that  which,  being  wanting,  all 
the  rest,  we  fear,  is  little  more  than  '  a  sounding  brass  and  a  tinkling 
cymbal.'  We  mean  the  recognition  of  the  power  of  the  legislature  to 
suppress  the  fanatics,  and  the  recommendation  to  do  so.  This  is  the 
substance  asked  of  the  north  by  their  brethren  of  the  south ;  and  the 
recent  manifesto  of  Tappan  &  Co.  makes  it  plain,  that  without  it, 
nothing  efi"ective  can  be  done  ;  that  without  it,  urgent  remonstrances  to 
these  madmen  to  desist,  and  warm  professions  tow'ards  the  south,  avail 
not  a  whit.  Up  to  the  mark  the  north  must  come,  if  it  would  restore 
tranquillity  and  preserve  the  union." 

In  the  proceedings  of  the  Albany  meeting,  the  Whig  could  see  an  object 
which  its  neighbor,  of  opposite  politics,  appears  not  to  have  discovered. 
It  says :  "  The  failure  of  the  Albany  meeting  to  enforce  the  expediency 
of  legislative  enactments,  is  ominous.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that 
strong  appeals  were  made  to  the  leaders  from  various  points,  perhaps 
from  Richmond  itself,  to  go  as  far  as  possible,  and  to  adopt  a  resolution, 
according  to  the  south  its  demand  for  legislative  enactment.  Political 
importance  was  attached  to  it  from  the  circumstance  that  the  immediate 
friends  of  Mr.  Van  Buren  and  his  party  leaders,  were  to  preside  at  the 
meeting,  and  thus  that  an  intelligent  sign  might  be  given  the  south,  that 
he  sustained  her  claim.  We  infer  nothing  against  Mr.  Van  Buren  him- 
self from  the  failure ;  but  we  do  infer  this,  either  that  his  Albany  par- 
tisans reject  the  claim,  or  fear  to  encounter  public  opinion  by  adopting 
it.  Either  way  it  may  be  regarded  as  decisive  of  the  fate  of  the  demand 
itself,  and  as  conclusive  that  nothing  will  be  done  by  the  state-  of  New 


THE    ANTI-SLAVERY    QUESTION.  643 

York  to  suppress  the  fanatics  hy  laiv.  New  York  is  the  l.otbed  of  the 
sect;  and  nothing  being  done  there,  what  maybe  done  elsewhere  will 
avail  nothing." 

The  Philadelphia  Inquirer  said :  "  The  south  has  called  upon  the 
north  for  action  in  relation  to  Garrison  and  his  co-workers :  Philadel- 
phia, at  least,  has  responded  to  this  call  in  a  spirit  of  the  utmost  liberal- 
ity. The  resolutions  adopted  at  the  town  meeting  of  Monday  last,  not 
only  denounce  the  recent  movements  of  the  abolitionists,  .  .  .  but  they 
expressly  disclaim  any  '  right  to  interfere,  directly  or  indirectly,  with 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  southern  states,'  and  aver  that  any  action 
upon  it  by  the  people  of  the  north,  would  be  not  only  a  violation  of  the 
constitution,  but  a  presumptuous  infraction  of  the  rights  of  the  south ; 
and  further,  one  of  them  recommends  to  the  legislature  of  this  common- 
wealth, to  enact,  at  the  next  session,  certain  provisions  to  protect  our 
fellow-citizens  of  the  south  from  any  incendiary  movements,  within  our 
borders,  should  any  such  hereafter  be  made.  Are  not^  these  declarations 
to  the  point  ?  Do  they  not  cover  the  whole  ground  ?  Do  they  not  go 
even  farther  than  many  of  the  resolutions  passed  at  public  meetings  in 
the  south  ?" 

The  northern  anti-abolitionists  received  some  pretty  severe  lectures 
for  not  putting  their  professions  into  practice.  Said  the  Southern 
Patriot :  "  Why  did  not  the  Albany  meeting  recommend  putting  down, 
by  the  strong  arm  of  the  law,  discussions  which  (it  declared,)  *  are  at 
war  with  every  moral  duty,  and  every  suggestion  of  humanity  ?'  Surely, 
that  which  is  declared  to  be  so  pernicious  as  to  be  at  war  with  every 
moral  duty,  and  every  humane  suggestion,  can  and  ought  to  be  made 
legSiWy  2^unishable.     It  is  works  and  not  words -we  want." 

Despairing  of  seeing  the  progress  of  anti-slavery  sentiment  arrested 
by  legislation,  the  south  suggested  the  remedy  of  non-intercourse  and 
disunion.  In  the  resolutions  of  a  public  meeting  in  South  Carolina,  it 
was  declared,  "  that  when  the  southern  states  are  reduced  to  the  alterna- 
tive of  choosing  either  union  without  liberty,  or  disunion  with  liberty  and 
property,  be  assured  they  will  not  hesitate  which  to  take,  and  will  make 
the  choice  promptly,  unitedly,  and  fearlessly."  And  it  was  unanimously 
resolved,  "  That  should  the  non-slaveholding  states  omit  or  refuse,  at 
the  ensuing  mee;ting  of  their  respective  legislatures,  to  put  a  final  stop  to 
the  proceedings  of  their  abolition  societies,  against  the  domestic  peace  of 
the  south,  and  effectually  prevent  any  farther  interference  by  them  with 
our  slave  population,  by  efficient  penal  laws,  it  will  then  become  the 
solemn  duty  of  the  whole  south,  in  order  to  protect  themselves  and  secure 
their  rights  and  property,  against  the  unconstitutional  combination  of  the 
non-slaveholding  states,  and  the  murderous  designs  of  their  abolitionist^ 
to  withdraw  from  the  union.?' 


644  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

In  relation  to  the  suspension  of  commercial  intercourse,  the  Richmond 
Whig  said  :  "  The  suggestion  of  acting  upon  fanaticism  by  withholding 
the  profits  of  southern  commerce,  from  those  engaged  either  actively,  or 
by  countenance,  in  propagating  its  designs,  is  obtaining  extensive  popu- 
larity. A  general  persuasion  prevails  of  its  efficacy.  It  is  an  argument 
which  will  carry  more  weight  than  appeals  to  justice,  humanity,  and  fra- 
ternal affection.  It  is  never  lost  to  mankind.  Through  the  purse  is  the 
surest  road  to  the  understandings  of  men;  especially,  so  we  have  been 
taught  to  believe,  to  the  understandings  of  those  with  whom  the  south 
is  now  contending.  Sx)uthern  commerce  is  essential  to  the  north.  *  *  * 
Can  the  south  be  blamed  for  cutting  off  the  resources  employed  to  dis- 
turb its  tranquillity,  and  overthrow  its  institutions  ?  Where  is  the 
illiberality  ?  Where  is  the  injustice  ?  That  all  should  suffer  where  a 
part  only  are  guilty,  is  to  be  deplored  but  not  avoided.  When  the  inno- 
cent feel  the  consequences,  they  will  be  stimulated  to  more  active  steps 
for  the  suppression  of  the  wretches  who  have  wrought  so  much  mischief 
and  engendered  so  much  bad  feeling. 

"  The  merchants  are  well  disposed  to  the  experiment ;  but  they  say  its 
success  depends  upon  the  country,  not  the  cities.  Without  the  coopera- 
tion of  the  country  citizens — without  they  put  their  shoulders  to  the 
wheel,  and  discourage  the  custom  of  buying  goods  in  the  north,  they  can 
do  nothing.  They  are  ready  to  promise,  and  to  fulfill  the  promise,  that, 
if  the  country  will  buy  their  goods,  they  shall  have  them  as  cheap  and 
as  good  as  the  northern  markets  now  supply.  Let  none  be  alarmed  by 
the  silly  and  traitorous  clamor  put  up  about  the  union.  The  articles  of 
union,  we  presume,  do  not  inhibit  the  south  from  caring  for  its  own 
safety,  or  promoting  its  own  prosperity." 

Application  was  made  to  the  postmaster-general  to  interpose  his 
authority  to  prevent  the  transmission,  by  mail,  of  anti-slavery  papers  and 
documents.  In  answer  to  a  request  of  a  meeting  in  Petersburg,  Vir- 
ginia, to  adopt  in  his  department  some  regulation  to  this  effect,  Mr. 
Kendall,  under  date  of  August  20,  1835,  said,  it  was  not  in  his  power, 
by  any  lawful  regulation,  to  obviate  the  evil.  Such  a  power,  if  any 
necessity  for  it  existed,  ought  not  to  be  vested  in  the  head  of  the  execu- 
tive department.  He,  however,  regarded  the  transmission,  through  the 
mail,  of  papers  "  tending  to  promote  discontent,  sedition,  and  servile  war, 
from  one  state  to  another,  as  a  violation  of  the  spirit,  if  not  the  letter,  of 
the  federal  compact,  which  would  justify,  on  the  part  of  the  injured 
states,  any  measure  necessary,  to  effect  their  exclusion."  For  the  pre- 
sent, the  only  means  of  relief  was  "in  responsibilities  voluntarily 
assumed  by  the  postmasters."  He  hoped  congress  would,  at  the  next 
session,  put  a  stop  to  the  evil,  and  pledged  his  exertions  to  promote  the 
adoption  of  a  measure  for  that  purpose. 


THE    ANTI-SLAVERY   QUESTION.  645 

The  postmaster  of  New  York  had  requested  the  anti-slavery  society 
to  desist  from  attempting  to  send  their  publications  into  the  southern 
states.  They  refusing  to  comply  with  the  request,  the  postmaster, 
Samuel  L.  Gouverneur,  detained  their  papers  destined  for  those  states, 
and  addressed  Mr.  Kendall  on  the  subject,  who  again  disclaims  the  right 
to  exclude  matter  from  the  mails  ;  but  he  adds :  "  If  I  were  situated  as 
you  are,  I  would  do  as  you  have  done.  iPostmasters  may  lawfully  know 
in  all  cases  the  contents  of  newspapers,  because  the  law  expressly  pro- 
vides that  they  shall  be  so  put  up  that  they  may  be  readily  examined ; 
and  if  they  know  those  contents  to  be  calculated  and  designed  to  produce, 
and,  if  delivered,  will  certainly  produce  the  commission  of  the  most 
aggravated  crimes  upon  the  property  and  persons  of  their  fellow-citizens, 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that  it  is  their  duty  to  detain  them,  if  not  even  to 
hand  them  over  to  the  civil  authorities.  *  *  *  If  it  be  justifiable 
to  detain  papers  passing  through  the  mail,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing 
or  punishing  isolated  crimes  against  individuals,  how  much  more  impor- 
tant is  it  that  this  responsibility  should  be  assumed  to  prevent  insurrec- 
tions and  save  communities !  If,  in  time  of  war,  a  postmaster  should 
detect  the  letter  of  an  enemy  or  spy  passing  through  the  mail,  which,  if 
it  reached  its  destination,  would  expose  his  country  to  invasion  and  her 
armies  to  destruction,  ought  he  not  to  arrest  it?  Yet,  where  is  his  legal 
power  to  do  so  ?" 

The  doctrines  of  the  postmaster-general,  advanced  in  these  letters, 
countenancing  th9  violation  of  the  mails  by  the  deputies,  were  the  sub- 
ject of  much  comment.  They  were  regarded  in  the  northern  states,  by  a 
large  portion  of  the  citizens — even  such  as  were  opposed  to  the  measures 
of  the  abolitionists — as  subversive  of  the  liberty  of  the  press. 

Conceiving  the  principles  and  objects  of  anti-slavery  associations  to 
be  misunderstood,  the  officers  of  the  American  anti-slavery  society  pub- 
lished in  its  defense  the  following  address  "  to  the  public  :  " 

"  In  behalf  of  the  American  anti-slavery  society,  we  solicit  the  candid 
attention  of  the  public  to  the  following  declaration  of  our  principles  and 
objects.^  Were  the  charges  which  are  brought  against  us,  made  only  by 
individuals  who  are  interested  in  the  continuance  of  slavery,  and  by  such 
as  are  influenced  solely  by  unworthy  motives,  this  address  would  be  un- 
necessary ;  but  there  are  those  who  merit  and  possess  our  esteem,  who 
would  not  voluntarily  do  us  injustice,  and  who  have  been  led  by  gross 
misrepresentations  to  believe  that  we  are  pursuing  measures  at  variance, 
not  only  with  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  south,  but  with  the  pre- 
cepts of  humanity  and  religion.  To  such  we  ofi'er  the  following  explana- 
tions and  assurances. 

"  1st.  We  hold  that  congresr  has  no  more  right  to  abolish  slavery  in 


646  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  southern  states,  than  in  the  French  West  India  islands.     Of  Course 
we  desire  no  national  legislation  on  the  subject. 

"  2d.  We  hold  that  slavery  can  only  be  lawfully  abolished  by  the 
legislatures  of  the  several  states  in  which  it  prevails,  and  that  the  exer- 
cise of  any  other  than  moral  influence  to  induce  such  abolition,  is  un- 
constitutional. 

*'  3d.  We  believe  that  congress  has  the  same  right  to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,  that  the  state  governments  have  within 
their  respective  jurisdictions,  and  that  it  is  their  duty  to  efface  so  foul  a 
blot  from  the  national  escutcheon. 

"  4th.  We  believe  that  American  citizens  have  the  right  to  express 
and  publish  their  opinions  of  the  constitution,  laws,  and  institutions  of 
any  and  every  state  and  nation  under  heaven ;  and  we  mean  never  to 
surrender  the  liberty  of  speech,  of  the  press,  or  of  conscience — blessings 
we  have  inherited  from  our  fathers,  and  which  we  intend,  as  far  as  we 
are  able,  to  transmit  unimpaired  to  our  children. 

^'  5th.  We  have  uniformly  deprecated  all  forcible  attempts  on  the  part 
of  the  slaves  to  recover  their  liberty.  And  were.it  in  our  power  to  ad- 
dress them,  we  would  exhort  them  to  observe  a  quiet  and  peaceful 
demeanor,  and  would  assure  them  that  no  insurrectionary  movements 
on  their  part  would  receive  from  us  the  slightest  aid  or  countenance. 

"  6th.  We  would  deplore  any  servile  insurrection,  both  on  account  of 
the  calamities  which  would  attend  it,  and  on  account  of  the  occasion  which 
it  might  furnish  of  increased  severity  and  oppression. 

"  7th.  We  are  charged  with  sending  incendiary  publications  to  the 
south.  If  by  the  term  incendiary  is  meant  publications  containing 
arguments  and  facts  to  prove  slavery  to  be  a  moral  and  political  evil, 
and  that  duty  and  policy  require  its  immediate  abolition,  the  charge  is 
true.  But  if  this  charge  is  used  to  imply  publications  encouraging  in- 
surrection, and  designed  to  excite  the  slaves  to  break  their  fetters,  the 
charge  is  utterly  and  unequivocally  false.  We  beg  our  fellow  citizens  to 
notice,  that  this  charge  is  made  without  proof,  and  by  many  who  confess 
that  they  have  never  read  our  publications,  and  that  those  whc^make  it, 
offer  to  the  public  no  evidence  from  our  writings  in  support  of  it. 

"8th.  We  are  accused  of  sending  our  publications  to  the  slaves,  and 
it  is  asserted  that  their  tendency  is  to  excite  insurrections.  Both  the 
charges  are  false.  « These  publications  are  not  intended  for  the  slaves, 
and  were  they  able  to  read  them,  they  would  find  in  them  no  encourage- 
ment to  insurrection. 

"9th.  We  are  accused  of  employing  agents  in  the  slave  states  to  dis- 
tribute our  publications.  We  have  never  had  one  such  agent.  We 
have   sent  no  packages  of  our  papers  to  any  person  in  those  states  for 


THE    ANTI-SLAVERY    QUESTION.  647 

distribution,  except  to  five  respectable  resident  citizens,  at  their  own 
request.  But  we  have  sent,  by  mail,  single  papers  addressed  to  public 
officers,  editors  of  newspapers,  clergymen,  and  others.  If,  therefore, 
our  object  is  to  excite  the  slaves  to  insurrection,  the  masters  are  our 


"  We  believe  slavery  to  be  sinful,  injurious  to  this  and  to  every  other 
country  in  which  it  prevails ;  we  believe  immediate  emancipation  to  be 
the  duty  of  every  slaveholder,  and  that  the  immediate  abolition  of  slav- 
ery, by  those  who  have  the  right  to  abolish  it,  would  be  safe  and  wise. 
These  opinions  we  have  freely  expressed,  and  we  certainly  have  no  inten- 
tion to  refrain  from  expressing  them  in  future,  and  urging  them  upon 
the  consciences  and  hearts  of  our  fellow  citizens  who  hold  slaves,  or 
apologize  for  slavery. 

"  We  believe  the  education  of  the  poor  is  recpired  by  duty,  and  by  a 
regard  for  the  permanency  of  our  republican  institutions.  There  are 
thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  our  fellow  citizens,  even  in  the  free 
states,  sunk  in  abject  poverty,  and  who,  on  account  of  their  complexion, 
are  virtually  kept  in  ignorance,  and  whose  instruction  in  certain  cases  is 
actually  prohibited  by  law!  We  are  anxious  to  protect  the  rights, 
and  to  promote  the  virtue  and  happiness  of  the  colored  portion  of  our 
population,  and  on  this  account  we  have  been  charged  with  a  design  to 
encourage  intermarriages  between  the  whites  and  blacks.  This  charge 
has  been  repeatedly,  and  is  now  again  denied,  while  we  repeat  that  the 
tendency  of  our  sentiments  is  to  put  an  end  to  the  criminal  amalgama- 
tion that  prevails  wherever  slavery  exists. 

"  We  are  accused  of  acts  that  tend  to  a  dissolution  of  the  union,  and 
even  of  wishing  to  dissolve  it.  We  have  never  '  calculated  the  value  of 
the  union,'  because  we  believe  it  to  be  inestimable  ;  and  that  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  will  remove  the  chief  danger  of  its  dissolution ;  and  one 
of  the  many  reasons  why  ,we  cherish  and  will  endeavor  to  preserve  the 
constitution  is,  that  it  restrains  congress  from  making  any  law  abridg- 
ing the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press. 

"  Such,  fellow  citizens,  are  our  principles — Are  they  unworthy  of  re- 
publicans and  Christians  ?  Or  are  they  in  truth  so  atrocious,  that  in 
order  to  prevent  their  difi'usion  you  are  yourselves  willing  to  surrender, 
at  the  dictation  of  others,  the  invaluable  privilege  of  free  discussion ; 
the  very  birthright  of  Americans  ?  Will  you,  in  order  that  the  abomi- 
nations of  slavery  may  be  concealed  from  public  view,  and  that  the 
capital  of  your  republic  may  continue  to  be,  as  it  now  is,  under  the 
sanction  of  congress,  the  great  slave  mart  of  th.e  American  continent, 
consent  that  the  general  government,  in  acknowledged  defiance  of  the 
constitution  and  laws,  shall  appoint  throughout  the  length  and  breadth 


648  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  your  land,  ten  thousand  censors  of  the  press,  each  of  whom  shall 
have  the  right  to  inspect  every  document  you  may  commit  to  the  post- 
office,  and  to  suppress  every  pamphlet  and  newspaper,  whether  religious 
or  political,  which  in  his  sovereign  pleasure  he  may  adjudge  to  contain 
an  incendiary  article  ?  Surely  we  need  not  remind  you,  that  if  you 
submit  to  such  an  encroachment  on  your  liberties,  the  days  of  our 
republic  are  numbered,  and  that,  although  abolitionists  may  be  the  first, 
they  will  not  be  the  last  victims  offered  at  the  shrine  of  arbitrary 
power." 

The  anti-slavery  agitation  which  was  spreading  through  the  union, 
soon  affected  the  deliberations  of  congress.  Petitions  from  the  free 
states,  praying  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  and  the  slave  trade  in  the 
District  of  Columbia,  were  daily  presented.  This  movement  was  depre- 
cated by  a  large  majority  of  congress.  Southern  representatives,  espe- 
cially, were  highly  inflamed.  Although  the  petitioners  asked  for  no  legis- 
lative interference  with  slavery  in  the  states,  to  which  it  was  universally 
admitted  the  power  of  congress  did  not  extend ;  the  exercise  of  "the 
power  within  the  district  and  the  territories,  would,  it  was  feared,  give 
the  petitioners  a  great  advantage  in  the  prosecution  of  their  ultimate 
object,  the  overthrow  of  the  institution. 

The  general  excitement  was  much  increased  by  the  contrariety  of 
opinion  as  to  the  manner  of  disposing  of  the  petitions.  Southern  mem- 
bers were  opposed  to  their  reception  altogether,  as  praying  for  an  act 
that  was  unconstitutional.  It  was  contended  that  congress  had  no  right 
thus  to  interfere  with  the  right  of  property,  without  the  consent  of  the 
owners ;  and  also  that  such  interference  would  be  a  violation  of  good 
faith  with  the  states  of  Maryland  and  Virginia,  which,  it  was  to  be  pre- 
sumed, would  never  have  ceded  the  territory  to  the  general  government, 
had  such  action  on  the  part  of  congress  been  anticipated.  The  agitation 
of  this  question  in  congress,  it  was  farther  contended,  would  disturb  the 
compromises  of  the  constitution,  endanger  the  union,  and,  if  persisted 
in,  destroy,  by  a  servile  war,  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  country. 
Hence  it  was  urged,  that  the  petitions  ought  not  to  be  entertained ;  and 
that,  without  giving  them  a  formal  reception,  they  should  be  laid  upon 
the  table,  without  being  referred  or  printed. 

The  discussion  of  the  several  propositions  for  the  disposal  of  the 
abolition  petitions  in  the  house,  resulted  in  the  adoption,  February  8, 
1836,  of  the  following  resolution  of  Mr.  Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina, 
which,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Vinton,  of  Ohio,  had  been  divided  into  three 
parts  :  "  Resolved,  (1.)  That  all  the  memorials  which  have  been  offered, 
or  may  hereafter  be  presented  to  this  house,  praying  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  also  the  resolutions  offered  by 


DISCUSSION    IN    CONGRESS.  049 

an  honorable  member  from  Maine,  (Mr.  Jarvis,)  with  the  amendment 
thereto  proposed  by  an  honorable  member  from  Virginia,  (Mr.  Wise,) 
and  every  other  paper  or  proposition  that  may  be  submitted  in  relation 
to  that  subject,  be  referred  to  a  select  committee;  (2.)  With  instructions 
to  report,  that  congress  possesses  no  constitutional  authority  to  interfere 
in  any  way  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  any  of  the  states  of  this 
confederacy  ;  (3.)  And  that,  in  the  opinion  of  this  house,  congress  ought 
not  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  be- 
cause it  would  be  a  violation  of  the  public  faith,  unwise,  impolitic,  and 
dangerous  to  the  union." 

The  first  clause  of  the  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  174  to  48 ; 
the  second,  201  to  7.  The  third  was  divided;  and  the  first  member  of 
the  same,  which  declared  that  congress  ought  not  to  interfere  with 
slavery  in  the  district,  was  carried,  163  to  47;  the  remaining  part,  129 
to  74.  Of  those  who  voted  in  the  negative  on  the  last  question,  all, 
with  a  few  exceptions,  were  whigs  from  the  northern  states;  the  adminis- 
tration members  generally  from  these  states,  in  both  houses,  having 
joined  the  south  on  this  question.  Mr.  Pinckney  was  severely  censured 
by  several  southern  members  for  having  moved  the  resolution ;  because 
the  power  of  congress  over  slavery  in  the  states  had  not  been  brought  in 
question ;  and  the  affirmation  of  the  proposition  that  congress  had  no 
such  power,  was  to  admit  that  it  needed  affirmation  ;  and  also  because 
they  were  opposed  to  the  discussion  of  the  question.  Mr.  Wise,  on  a 
subsequent  occasion,  alluding  to  the  mover  of  the  resolution,  said  :  "  I 
hiss  him  as  a  deserter  from  the  principles  of  the  south  on  the  slavery 
question." 

On  the  18  th  of  May,  Mr.  Pinckney,  from  the  select  committee  ap- 
pointed on  his  motion,  reported  three  resolutions;  the  first  denying  the 
power  of  congress  over  slavery  in  the  states;  the  second,  declaring  that 
congress  ought  not  to  interfere  with  it  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  The 
third,  which  was  not  contemplated  by  the  instructions  to  the  committee, 
required  all  petitions  and  papers  relating  to  the  subject,  to  be  at  once 
laid  upon  the  table,  without  being  printed  or  referred,  and  without  any 
other  action  on  them.  On  the  25th  of  May,  the  vote  was  taken  on  the 
first  resolution,  under  the  pressure  of  the  previous  question.  Mr. 
Adams  said,  if  the  house  would  allow  him  five  minutes,  he  would  prove 
the  resolution  to  be  false.  Eight  members  were  understood  to  have 
voted  in  the  negative  :  Messrs.  Adams,  Jackson,  and  Philips,  of  Mass., 
Everett  and  Slade,  of  Yt.,  Clark,  Denney,  and  Potts,  of  Penn.  The 
second  resolution  was  adopted  the  next  day,  132  to  45*;  the  third,  117 
to  68. 

In  the  senate,  the  principal  discussion  on  the  disposal  of  abolition 


650  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

petitions  was  upon  one  from  the  society  of  the  "  Friends"  in  the  state  of 
Pennsylvania,  adopted  at  the  Cain  quarterly  meeting.  It  was  presented 
the  11th  of  January,  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  who  said  he  was  in  favor  of 
giving  the  memorial  a  respectful  reception  ;  but  he  wished  to  put  the 
question  at  rest.  He  should  therefore  move  that  the  memorial  be  read, 
and  that  the  prayer  of  the  memorialists  be  rejected.  The  question  on 
receiving  the  petition  was,  on  the  9th  of  March,  decided  in  the  affirrna- 
tive  :  ayes,  36;  noes,  10;  the  latter  all  from  southern  senators.  On 
the  11th,  the  whole  subject,  including  the  rejection  of  the  petition,  was 
agreed  to,  34  to  6.  Those  who  voted  in  the  negative,  were,  Messrs. 
Davis  and  Webster,  from  Mass.,  Prentiss,  of  Yt.,  Knight,  of  R.  I.,  and 
Southard,  of  N.  J. 

But  the  most  important  action  of  the  senate  was  upon  a  bill  to  pro- 
hibit the  circulation  of  abolition  publications  by  mail.  The  president 
had  in  his  annual  message  called  the  attention  of  congress  to  the  sub- 
ject. He  said :  "  I  must  also  invite  your  attention  to  the  painful 
excitement  produced  in  the  south,  by  attempts  to  circulate,  through  the' 
mails,  inflammatory  appeals  addressed  to  the  passions  of  the  slaves,  in 
prints,  and  in  various  sorts  of  publications,  calculated  to  stimulate  them 
to  insurrection,  and  to  produce  all  the  horrors  of  a  servile  war,"  He 
said  it  was  "  fortunate  for  the  country,  that  the  good  sense  and  gene- 
rous feeling  of  the  people  of  the  non-slaveholding  states"  were  so  strong 
".against  the  proceedings  of  the  misguided  persons  who  had  engaged  in 
these  unconstitutional  and  wicked  attempts,  as  to  authorize  the  hope 
that  these  attempts  will  no  longer  be  persisted  in."  But  if  these 
expressions  of  the  public  will  should  not  effect  the  desirable  result,  he 
did  ''  not  doubt  that  the  non-slaveholding  states  would  exercise  their 
authority  in  suppressing  this  interference  with  the  constitutional  rights 
of  the  south."  And  he  would  respectfully  suggest  the  passing  of  a 
law  that  would  "  prohibit,  under  severe  penalties,  the  circulation  in  the 
{Southern  states,  through  the  mail,  of  incendiary  publications,  intended 
to  instigate  the  slaves  to  insurrection." 

This  part  of  the  message  was,  on  motion  of  Mr,  Calhoun,  referred  to 
a  select  committee,  which,  in  accordance  with  his  wishes,  was  composed 
mainly  of  senators  from  the  slave-holding  states.  They  were,  Messrs. 
Calhoun,  King,  of  Georgia,  Mangum,  Linn,  and  Davis ;  the  last  alone 
being  from  the  free  states.  The  report  of  the  committee  was  made  the 
4th  of  February.  Notwithstanding  four-fifths  of  its  members  were 
southern,  only  Messrs.  Calhoun  and  Mangum  were  in  favor  of  the  entire 
report.  The  accompanying  bill  prohibited  postmasters  from  knowingly 
putting  into  the  mail  any  printed  or  written  paper  or  pictorial  represen- 
tation relating  to  slavery,  addressed  to  any  person  in  a  state  in  which 


INCENDIARY    PUBLICATIONS.  651 

their  circulation  was  forbidden ;  and  it  prohibited  postmasters  in  such 
state  from  delivering  such  papers  to  any  person  not  authorized  by  the 
laws  of  the  state  to  receive  them.  And  the  postmasters  of  the  offices 
where  such  papers  were  deposited,  were  required  to  give  ^notice  of  the 
same  from  time  to  time ;  and  if  the  papers  were  not,  within  one  month, 
withdrawn  by  the  person  depositing  them,  they  were  to  be  burnt  or  other- 
wise Kiestroyed.  Mr.  Linn,  though  dissenting  from  parts  of  the  report, 
approved  the  bill. 

Mr.  Calhoun,  in  his  report,  reiterated  his  favorite  doctrine  of  state 
sovereignty  ;  from  which  he  deduced  the  inherent  right  of  a  state  to 
defend  itself  against  internal  dangers ;  and  he  denied  the  right  of  the 
general  government  to  assist  a  state,  even  in  case  of  domestic  violence, 
except  on  application  of  the  authorities  of  the  state  itself.  He  said  it 
belonged  to  the  slavehol4ing  states,  whose  institutions  were  in  danger, 
and  not  to  congress,  as  the  message  supposed,  to  determine  what  papers 
were  incendiary ;  and  he  asserted  the  proposition,  that  each  state  was 
under  obligation  to  prevent  its  citizens  from  disturbing  the  peace  or 
endangering  the  security  of  other  states ;  and  that,  in  case  of  being 
disturbed  or  endangered,  the  latter  had  a  right  to  demand  of  the  former 
the  adoption  of  measures  for  their  protection.  And  if  it  should  neglect 
its  duty,  the  states  whose  peace  was  assailed  might  resort  to  means  to 
protect  themselves,  as  if  they  were  separate  and  independent  commu- 
nities. 

As  motives  to  suppress  by  law  the  efforts  of  the  abolitionists,  the 
report  mentioned  the  danger  of  their  accomplishing  their  object,  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  southern  states,  and  the  consequent  evils 
vyhich  would  attend  it.  It  would  destroy  property  to  the  amount  of 
$950,000,000,  and  impoverish  an  entire  section  of  the  union.  By 
destroying  the  relation  between  the  two  races,  the  improvement  of  the 
condition  of  the  colored  people,  now  ^o  rapidly  going  on,  and  by  which 
they  had  been,  both  physically  and  intellectually,  and  in  respect  to  the 
comforts  of  Hfe,  elevated  to  a  condition  enjoyed  by  the  laboring  class  in 
few  countries,  and  greatly  superior  tO  that  of  the  free  people  of  the  same 
race  in  the  non-slaveholding  states,  would  be  arrested ;  and  the  two  races 
would  be  placed  in  a  state  of  conflict  which  must  end  in  the  expulsion 
or  extirpation  of  one  or  the  other. 

But  for  the  fact  that  the  president's  message  expressed  similar  appre- 
hensions of  "  the  horrors  of  a  servile  war,"  and  contained  a  similar  sug- 
gestion of  the  interposition  of  the  state  governments  to  suppress  the 
"wicked  attempts"  of  the  anti-slavery  societies  to  interfere  with  south- 
ern rights,  it  would  be  almost  incredible  that  Mr.  Calhoun  could  have 
seriously  entertained  such  fears,  or  claimed  for  the  states  such  powers. 


652  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

There  was,  however,  between  the  message  and  the  report  this  difference, 
that  the  former  was  silent  as  to  the  right  of  the  slave  states  "  to  resort 
to  means  to  protect  themselves"  against  the  incendiary  associations. 

The  bill,  reported  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  sustained  by  the  combined  influence 
of  his  own  report  and  the  executive  recommendation,  made  its  way  nearly 
through  the  senate.  Mr.  Webster  opposed  the  bill,  because  it  was  vague 
and  obscure,  in  not  sufficiently  defining  the  publications  to  be  prohibited. 
Whether  for  or  against  slavery,  if  they  *'  touched  the  subject,"  they 
would  come  under  the  prohibition.  Even  the  constitution  might  be  pro- 
hibited. And  the  deputy-postmaster  must  decide,  and  decide  correctly, 
under  pain  of  beicg  removed  from  office !  He  must  make  himself 
acquainted  with  the  laws  of  all  the  states  on  the  subject,  and  decide  on 
them,  however  variant  they  might  be  with  each  other.  The  bill  also 
conflicted  with  that  provision  of  the  constitution  which  guarantied  the 
freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press.  If  a  newspaper  came  to  him,  he 
had  a  property  in  it ;  and  how  could  any  man  take  that  property  and 
burn  it  without  due  form  of  law  ?  And  how  could  that  newspaper  be 
pronounced  an  unlawful  publication,  and  having  no  property  in  it,  with- 
out a  legal  trial  ?  He  argued  against  the  right  to  examine  into  the 
nature  of  publications  sent  to  the  post-office,  and  said  that  the  right  of 
an  individual  in  his  papers  was  secured  to  him  in  every  free  country  in 
the  world. 

Mr.  Clay  said  the  papers,  while  in  the  post-office  or  in  the  mail,  did  no 
harm  :  it  was  their  circulation — their  being  taken  out  of  the  mail,  and 
the  use  made  of  them — that  constituted  the  mischief;  and  the  state  au- 
thorities could  apply  the  remedy.  The  instant  a  prohibited  paper  was 
handed  out,  whether  to  a  citizen  or  a  sojourner,  he  was  subject  to  the 
law  which  might  compel  him  to  surrender  or  to  burn  it.  The  bill  was 
vague  and  indefinite,  unnecessary  and  dangerous.  It  applied  to  non- 
slaveholding  as  well  as  to  slaveholding  states — to  papers  touching  slavery, 
as  well  for  as  against  it :  and  a  non- slaveholding  state  might,  under  this 
bill,  prohibit  publications  in  defense  of  slavery.  But  the  law  would  be 
inoperative  :  the  postmaster  was  not  amenable,  unless  he  delivered  the  pa- 
pers knowing  them  to  be  incendiary ;  and  he  had  only  to  plead  igno- 
rance to  avoid  the  penalty  of  the  law.  Mr  C.  wished  to  know  whence 
congress  derived  the  power  to  pass  this  law.  The  senator  from  Penn- 
sylvania had  asked  if  the  post-office  power  did  not  give  the  right  to  say 
what  should  be  carried  in  the  mails.  There  was  no  such  power  as  that 
claimed  in  the  bill.  If  such  doctrine  prevailed,  the  government  might 
designate  the  persons,  or  parties,  or  classes,  who  should  have  the  exclu- 
sive benefit  of  the  mails. 

Before  the  question  was  taken  on  the  engrossment  of  the  bill,  a  mo- 


atherton's  resolutions.  653 

tion  by  Mr.  Calhoun  to  amend  it  so  as  prevent  the  withdrawal  of  the  pro- 
hibited papers,  was  negatived,  15  to  15.  An  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Grundy,  restricting  the  punishment  of  deputy-postmasters  to  removal 
from  office,  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  bill  was  reported  to  the  senate.  Mr. 
Calhoun  renewed  his  motion  in  senate,  and  it  was  again  lost,  15  to  15. 
Mr.  Benton,  in  his  late  work,  says,  that,  in  committee  of  the  whole  the 
vice-president  did  not  vote  in  the  case  of  a  tie.  The  question  being  then 
taken  on  the  engrossment,  there  was  again  a  tie  :  18  to  18.  The  vice- 
president  having  temporarily  left  the  chair,  returned,  and  gave  the  casting 
vote  in  the  affirmative.  Of  the  senators  from  the  free  states  voting  in 
the  affirmative,  were  Messrs.  Buchanan,  Tallmadge  and  Wright.  Those 
who  voted  in  the  negative  from  the  slave  states,  were  Messrs.  Benton, 
Clay,  and  Kent,  of  Maryland. 

This  casting  vote  of  Mr.  Yan  Buren,  and  the  several  votes  of  Mr. 
Wright,  who  voted  with  Mr.  Calhoun  on  this  subject,  have  been  justified 
by  their  friends  on  the  ground  that  Mr.  Calhoun,  (to  use  the  language 
of  Mr.  Benton,)  "  had  made  the  rejection  of  the  bill  a  test  of  alliance 
with  northern  abolitionists,  and  a  cause  for  the  secession  of  the  southern 
states ;  and  if  this  bill  had  been  rejected  by  Mr.  Yan  Buren's  vote,  the 
whole  responsibility  of  its  loss  would  have  been  thrown  upon  him  and 
the  north,  and  the  south  inflamed  against  those  states  and  himself — the 
more  so,  as  Mr.  White,  of  Tennessee,  the  opposing  democratic  candidate 
for  the  presidency,  gave  his  votes  for  the  bill."  The  several  successive 
tie  votes  have  been  ascribed  to  design — that  of  placing  Mr.  Yan  Buren 
in  this  position.  With  this  intent,  other  senators  voted  for  the  bill,  and 
still  others  absented  themselves,  knowing  it  would  not  finally  pass.  This 
supposition  was  strengthened  by  the  full  vote  given  on  the  question  of 
its  final  passage  :  ayes,  19 ;  noes,  25  ;  only  4  absent :  the  three  senators 
from  the  free  states,  Buchanan,  Tallmadge  and  Wright,  again  voting 
in  the  affirmative;  and  Benton,  Clay,  Crittenden,  Goldsborough  and 
Kent,  of  Maryland,  Leigh,  Naudain,  of  Delaware,  in  all  seven,  from 
slave  states,  in  the  negative.  Here  ended  another  attempt  of  the  south 
at  practical  nullification. 

On  the  11th  of  December,  1838,  Mr.  Atherton,  of  New  Hampshire, 
offered  a  series  of  resolutions,  denouncing  petitions  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  against  the  slave  trade  between 
the  states,  as  a  plan  indirectly  to  destroy  that  institution  within  the 
several  states ;  declaring  that  congress  has  no  right  to  do  that  indirectly 
which  it  can  not  do  directly ;  that  the  agitation  of  this  question  for  the 
above  purpose,  is  against  the  true  spirit  and  meaning  of  the  constitution, 
and  an  infringement  of  the  rights  of  the  states  affected,  and  a  breach  of 
the  public  faith  on  which  they  entered  into  the  confederacy ;  and  that 


654  THE    AMEraCAN    STATESMAN. 

every  petition,  memorial,  or  paper  relating  in  any  way  to  slavery  as 
aforesaid,  should,  on  presentation,  without  further  action  thereon,  be  laid 
on  the  table  without  being  debated,  printed,  or  referred. 

After  the  close  of  a  speech  in  support  of  these  resolutions,  Mr.  A. 
moved  the  previous  question,  which  was  seconded,  103  to  102.  A  motion 
to  adjourn  that  ths  resolutions  might  be  printed,  so  that  the  house  might 
vote  understandingly,  was  objected  to  by  Mr.  Citshman,  of  New  Hamp- 
shire; and  the  main  question  was  ordered,  114  to  107.  The  resolutions 
were  subsequently  all  adopted  by  different  votes.  That  which  related  to 
the  reception  of  petitions  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  127  to  78.  These 
resolutions,  as  well  as  their  author,  obtained  considerable  notoriety,  being 
generally  referred  to  by  the  fri^ends  of  the  right  of  petition,  as  "  Ather- 
ton's  gag  resolutions."  Although  the  fifth  resolution,  like  one  adopted 
at  a  former  session,j)revented  a  formal  reception  of  petitions,  it  did  not 
apparently  affect  their  presentation.  They  were  daily  offered  as  usual : 
indeed  an  additional  object  of  petition  was  furnished ;  numerous  peti- 
tions being  presented  for  the  abolition  of  the  gag  resolutions. 


CHAPTER  LIII. 

DISTRIBUTION    OF     THE     SURPLUS    REVENUE. DEATH    OF    MR.    MADISON. — 

ADMISSION    OF    ARKANSAS    AND    MICHIGAN     INTO     THE    UNION. RECOGNI- 
TION   OF    THE    INDEPENDENCE    OF    TEXAS. CLAIMS    AGAINST    MEXICO. 

Another  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  to  procure  the  passage  of 
Mr.  Clay's  bill  to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands. 
The  sum  to  be  distributed  was  about  $21,000,000.  It  included  the 
receipts  for  the  last  three  years,  which  were  in  1833,  $3,967,682;  in 
1834,  $4,857,600;  in  1835,  $12,222,121.  The  proceeds  for  these  years 
were  large  beyond  all  precedent.  The  bill  passed  the  senate,  25  to  20  ; 
but  in  the  house  it  was  laid  on  the  table,  by  a  vote  of  1 14  to  85. 

There  being  no  longer  any  hope  of  effecting^a  distribution  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  land  sales,  a  new  plan  of  distribution  was  devised.  Although 
an  act  had  been  passed  at  the  last  session,  (1834-35,)  to  regulate  the 
public  deposits  in  the  state  banks,  a  new  bill,  designed  to  afford  addi- 
tional security  to  these  moneys,  was  reported  in  the  house  by  Mr.  Cam- 
breleng,  chairman  of  the  committee  of  ways  and  means.  Also  a  bill  to 
regulate  the  deposits  of  the  public  money  was  introduced  into  the  senate. 
This  bill  was  so  amended  as  to  provide  for  the  distribution  of  the  sur- 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    THE    SURPLUS    REVENUE.  655 

plus  revenue  among  the  states.  To  avoid  the  constitutional  objections 
to  distribution  which  some  were  known  to  entertain,  among  whom  was 
Mr.  Calhoun,  who  had  at  a  former  session  proposed  to  amend  the  con- 
stitution for  this  purpose,  the  bill  was  made  to  provide,  that  the  money 
should  be  "  deposited  with,"  instead  of  distributed  among,  the  several 
states ;  and  that,  if  the  money  should  at  any  time  be  wanted  by  the 
general  government,  it  was  to  be  returned  at  the  call  of  congress. 

The  act  was  passed  in  June,  1836,  and  provided  that  the  money  in 
the  treasury  on  the  1st  of  January,  ^1837,  reserving  five  millions  of 
dollars,  should  be  deposited  as  above  stated,  in  proportion  to  their 
respective  representation  in  the  senate  and  house  of  representatives  of 
congress,  in  four  quarterly  instalments,  commencing  in  January.  The 
secretary  of  the  treasury  was  to  receive  for  the  money  certificates  of 
deposits,  which,  in  case  the  wants  of  the  treasury  should  require  it, 
might,  in  whole  or  in  part,  be  sold  by  the  secretary ;  the  sales  to  be 
rateable  in  just  proportions  among  all  the  states ;  and  the  certificates, 
when  sold,  to  bear  an  interest  of  five  per  cent.,  payable  half-yearly,  and 
redeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  states.  Although  the  money  was  thus 
returnable  when  wanted,  it  was  presumed  that  it  would  never  be  called 
for.  The  surplus  which  had  accumulated  in  1836  from  customs  and  land 
sales,  exceeded  forty  millions  ;  of  which  only  about  twenty-eight  millions 
were  actually  divided  ;  congress  having  found  it  necessary,  in  consequence 
of  unexpected  wants  of  the  government,  to  suspend  the  fourth  instal- 
ment.    No  part  of  the  money  has  yet  been  called  for. 

The  bill  passed  both  houses  by  very  large  majorities.  The  vote  in  the 
senate,  on  its  engrossment,  was  40  to  6  ;  on  its  passage,  38  to  6.  Those 
who  voted  in  the  negative  were,  Messrs.  Benton,  Black,  Cuthbert,  Grundy, 
Walker,  and  Wright.  In  the  house,  the  vote  on  its  passage  was  155  to  38. 
It  received  a  strong  opposition  in  the  senate  from  Messrs.  Benton  and 
Wright.  The  speech  of  the  former,  after  the  bill  had  been  ordered  to  a  third 
reading,  was  both  vehement  and  caustic.  He  denounced  it  as  "  distribution 
in  disguise — as  a  deposit  never  to  be  reclaimed ;  as  a  miserable  evasion 
of  the  constitution ;  as  an  attempt  to  debauch  the  people  with  their  own 
money ;  as  plundering  instead  of  defending  the  country ;  as  a  cheat 
that  would  only  last  till  the  presidential  election  was  over ;  for  there 
would  be  no  money  to  deposit  after  the  first  or  second  quarter  ;  as 
having  the  efi"ect,  if  not  the  intention,  of  breaking  the  deposit  banks ; 
and  finally,  as  disappointing  its  authors  in  their  schemes  of  popularity." 
[Benton's  View,  vol.  I,  p.  652.] 

The  bill  was  signed  by  the  president  "  with  a  repugnance  of  feeling," 
as  that  author  says,  "and  a  recoil  of  judgment,  which  it  required  great 
efl"orts  of  friends  to  overcome  ;  and  with  a  regret  for  it  afterwards  which 


656  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

be  often  and  publicly  expressed."  His  approval  of  tlie  bill,  it  was  un- 
derstood, had  been  urged  by  the  friends  of  Mr,  Yan  Buren,  who  appre- 
hended from  its  rejection  an  adverse  effect  upon  the  democratic  party 
in  the  election.  His  refusal  to  sign  it,  however,  would  not,  it  is  pre- 
sumed, have  prevented  its  becoming  a  law.  Having  repeatedly  recom- 
mended "  the  apportionment  of  the  surplus  revenue  among  the  several 
states  according  to  their  ratio  of  representation,  as  the  most  safe,  just, 
and  federal  disposition  which  could  be  made  of  it,"  the  ground  of  his 
subsequent  opposition  to  the  measure  was  a  subject  of  much  conjecture. 

On  the  30th  of  June,  1836,  president  Jackson  announced,  by  message, 
to  both  houses  of  congress,  the  death  of  James  Madison,  which  occurred 
on  the  28th.  The  president  suggested  the  adoption  of  proper  measures 
to  testif)'-  their  sense  of  respect  to  his  memory.  Mr.  Rives,  a  senator 
from  Yirginia,  and  a  neighbor  of  Mr.  Madison,  passed  a  brief  but  beau- 
tiful eulogy  upon  this  distinguished  patriot  and  statesman.  He  had 
but  six  days  before  his  death  written  a  letter  to  Mr.  R.,  in  which  he 
spoke  of  his  enfeebled  health  and  trembling  signature,  and  which  Mr. 
R.  thought,  was  the  last  he  had  ever  written.     Said  Mr.  Rives: 

"  Still  I  trusted  that  his  light  might  hold  out  to  the  4th  of  July, 
that  he  might  be  restored,  on  that  glorious  anniversary,  to  an  immortal 
companionship  with  those  great  men  and  patriots  with  whom  he  had 
been  intimately  connected  in  life,  and  whose  coincident  deaths,  on  the 
birth-day  of  the  nation's  freedom,  had  imparted  to  that  day,  if  possible, 
an  additional  and  mysterious  illustration.  But  it  has  been  ordered 
otherwise.  His  career  has  been  closed  at  an  epoch,  which,  forty-nine 
years  ago,  witnessed  his  most  efficient  labors  in  the  illustrious  assembly 
which  laid  the  foundations  of  our  present  system  of  government,  and 
will  thus,  by  the  remembrance  of  his  death,  as  well  as  by  the  services  of 
his  life,  more  closely  associate  him '  with  that  great  work,  which  is  at 
once  the  source  and  the  guaranty  of  his  country's  happiness  and  glory," 

In  the  house,  his  death  was  appropriately  noticed  by  Mr,  Patton,  his 
immediate  representative ;  who  was  followed  by  Mr.  Adams. 

In  June,  1836,  acts  were  passed  for  the  admission  of  Arkansas  and 
Michigan  into  the  union.  An  act  had  been  passed  by  the  territorial 
legislature  of  Arkansas  without  the  approbation  of  the  governor,  calling 
a  convention  to  assemble  the  1st  of  January,  1836,  to  form  a  state  con- 
stitution preparatory  to  admission.  This  measure  was  taken  without 
previous  action  by  congress.  The  question  was  submitted  to  attorney- 
general  Butler,  who  gave  it  as  his  opinion,  that  all  measures  to  subvert 
the  territorial  government,  and  to  establish  in  its  place  a  new  govern- 
ment, without  the  consent  of  congress,  would  be  unlawful.  The  conven- 
tion was  held,  and  a  constitution  adopted  by  the  convention ;  also  a 


ADMISSION    OF    ARKANSAS    AND    MICHIGAN   INTO    THE   UNION.  657 

memorial  to  congress  asking  for  admission.  In  Michigan,  the  legislative 
council  was  convened  by  the  acting  governor,  Stevens  T.  Mason,  in  Sep- 
tember, 1834,  without  any  previous  action  of  congress.  The  governor 
recommended  that  provision  should  be  made  to  ascertain  the  population ; 
and  in  the  event  of  its  'being  60,000,  that  a  convention  should  be  called 
to  institute  a  state  government,  and  provision  made  for  the  election  of 
a  representative  and  senator  to  congress.  He  said :  "  The  state  of 
Michigan  will  then  have  a  right  to  demand  admission  into  the  union ; 
and  it  is  not  to  be  anticipated  that  the  congress  of  the  United  States 
will  hesitate  to  yield,  as  a  matter  of  right,  what  they  have  heretofore 
refused  to  grant  as  a  favor."  Conventions  were  held  in  both  territories, 
and  in  1836  copies  of  their  constitutions  were  sent  to  congress  with 
petitions  for  admission. 

Notwithstanding  the  attorney-general  had  decided  in  the  case  of 
Arkansas,  that  her  action  without  the  authority  of  congress  was  unlaw- 
ful, bills  were  reported  in  the  senate  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  both 
territories  as  states.  They  were  opposed  on  the  ground  that  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  territories  in  forming  their  constitutions  were  unlawful 
and  revolutionary.  In  the  case  of  Michigan,  it  was  also  objected,  that 
the  boundary  dispute  with  Ohio  was  still  unsettled;  and  also  that  the 
constitution  gave  the  right  of  suffrage  to  unnaturalized  aliens.  To  the 
first  objection  it  was  replied,  that,  as  congress  had  refused  to  pass  the 
act  asked  for,  the  state  authorities  were  justified  in  the  course  they 
had  taken.  The  memorial  of  the  legislature  praying  for  admission 
might  be  considered  as  coming  from  the  people,  and  the  previous  actiou 
of  congress,  being  a  matter  of  form,  might  be  dispensed  with.  Against 
the  objection  of  alien  suffrage,  it  was  urged,  that  Ohio  and  Illinois  had 
been  admitted  with  constitutions  containing  similar  provisions;  that  of 
Ohio  extending  the  right  to  all  white  male  inhabitants  twenty-one  years 
of  age  and  having  had  a  year's  residence  in  the  state  ;  and  that  of  Illi- 
nois to  the  same  class  of  persons,  after  a  residence  of  six  months.  In 
these  states,  the  right  still  existed  ;  whereas  the  constitution  of  Michigan 
confined  it  to  those  who  resided  in  the  territory  at  the  time  of  signing 
the  constitution. 

It  was  deemed  proper,  however,  in  the  bill  to  admit  Michigan,  to 
settle  the  boundary  question.  Accordingly,  it  established,  as  the  north- 
ern boundary  of  the  state  of  Ohio,  a  direct  line  from  the  southern  ex- 
tremity of  lake  Michigan  to  the  most  northerly  cape  of  Maumee  (Maimi) 
bay,  after  the  line  so  drawn  should  intersect  the  eastern  boundary  line  of 
Indiana,  and  from  said  cape,  north-east  to  the  boundary  line  between 
the  United  States  and  Upper  Canada  in  Lake  Erie ;  and  theuce  along 
the  Canada  line  to  the  west  line  of  Pennsylvania.     The  admission  of 

42 


658  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Michigan  was  placed  upon  the  condition,  that  the  boundaries  prescribed 
by  congress  should  be  assented  to  by  a  state  convention  of  delegates 
elected  by  the  people.  This  bill  and  that  for  admitting  Arkansas,  were 
both  passed  June  15,  1836.  The  admission  of  Michigan,  however,  was 
not  consummated  until  the  26th  of  January,  18^7,  when,  the  assent  to 
the  boundary  line  having  been  duly  given,  an  act  of  congress  declared 
the  admission  complete. 

On  the  23d  of  June,  1836,  a  supplement  to  the  act  of  June  15,  was 
passed,  granting  to  the  state  section  number  sixteen  of  every  township, 
and  where  such  section  had  been  disposed  of,  other  lands  equivalent 
thereto,  for  the  use  of  schools ;  and  granting  to  the  state  the  seventy-two 
sections  set  apart  and  reserved  by  congress  for  the  use  and  support  of  a 
university,  to  be  appropriated  solely  to  that  object :  also  granting  all 
salt  springs,  not  exceeding  twelve,  with  six  sections  of  land  adjoining, 
and  appropriating  five  per  cent,  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  pub- 
lic lands  for  making  public  roads  and  canals.  A  similar  act  was  passed 
supplementary  to  that  admitting  Arkansas. 

In  the  senate,  the  vote  on  the  conditional  admission  of  Michigan, 
stood  23  to  8.  The  friends  of  the  bill  being  resolved  to  press  the  bill 
to  a  passage,  many  of  the  opposing  senators  had  left  their  seats.  A 
preceding  vote  on  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill,  may  be  considered  as 
very  nearly  the  test  vote  on  the  admission;  which  was,  28  to  19,  being, 
as  is  believed,  a  strict  party  vote.  The  Arkansas  bill  passed  the  senate 
two  days  after,  (April  4,)  31  to  6.  Those  who  voted  in  the  negative 
were  Messrs.  Clay,  Porter,  of  Louisiana,  Knight,  and  Robbius,  the 
senators  from  Rhode  Island,  and  Swift,  and  Prentiss,  the  senators  from 
Vermont.  The  two  last  objected  to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution 
which  permitted  slavery,  and  prohibited  its  abolition.  The  other  four 
senators  objected — all  of  them,  it  is  believed — on  account  of  the  unau- 
thorized proceedings  of  the  people  in  forming  their  constitutions.  Mr. 
Prentiss  gave  this  as  an  additional  reason  for  voting  against  the  ad- 
mission. 

In  the  house,  apprehending  opposition  from  northern  members  to  the 
Arkansas  bill,  a  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  Wise  to  change  the  order  of 
the  two  bills,  giving  to  this  the  precedence.  This  motion  was  opposed 
by  several  southern  members,  as  implying  a  distrust  of  their  northern 
friends.  It  was  also  considered  unnecessary.  Said  Mr.  Thomas,  of 
Maryland :  "  Let  us  proceed  harmoniously,  until  we  find  that  our  harmony 
must  be  interrupted.  We  shall  lose  nothing  by  so  doing.  If  a  majo- 
rity of  the  house  be  in  favor  of  reading  a  third  time  the  Michigan  bill, 
they  will  order  it  to  be  done.  After  that  vote  has  been  taken,  we  can 
refuse  to  read  the  bill  a  third  time,  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  on 


ADMISSION    OF    ARKANSAS    AAD    MICHIGAN    INTO    THE    UNION.  659 

the  state  of  the  union,  then  consider  the  Arkansas  hill,  report  it  to  the 
house,  order  it  to  he  read  a  third  time,  and  in  this  order  proceed  to  read 
them  each  a  third  time,  if  a  majority  of  the  house  he  in  favor  of  that 
proceeding.  Let  it  not  he  said  that  southern  men  may  he  taken  by 
surprise,  if  the  proceeding  here  respectfully  recommended  be  adopted. 
If  the  friends  of  Arkansas  are  sufficiently  numerous  to  carry  now  the 
motion  to  postpone,  they  can  arrest  at  any  time  the  action  of  the  house 
on  the  Michigan  bill,  until  clear,  indubitable  indications  have  been  given 
that  the  Missouri  compromise  is  not  to  be  disregarded." 

Mr.  Wise  having  modified  his  motion  by  moving  to  refer  both  bills 
with  instructions  to  incorporate  them  into  one  bill,  Mr.  Patton  and  Mr. 
Bouldin,  both  of  Virginia,  opposed  that  part  of  this  motion  which 
instructed  the  committee  to  unite  the  bills.  Mr.  B.  said  he  had  implicit 
confidence  in  the  members  from  the  non-slaveholding  states,  "  that  no 
serious  difficulty  would  be  made  as  to  the  admission  of  Arkansas  in 
regard  to  negro  slavery."  Mr.  Lewis,  of  North  Carolina,  was  in  favor 
of  giving  precedence  to  the  Arkansas  bill,  considering  it  the  weaker  of 
the  two.  The  people  of  the  south,  he  said,  wanted  a  hostage  to  protect 
them  on  this  delicate  question ;  and  the  efi'ect  of  giving  precedence  to 
the  Michigan  bill  would  deprive  them  of  that  hostage. 

Mr.  Gushing,  of  Massachusetts,  protested  against  the  admission  of 
Arkansas  with  the  clause  in  her  constitution  prohibiting  the  legislature 
from  passing  laws  for  the  emancipation  of  slaves  without  the  consent  of 
the  owners.  He  concurred  with  his  constituents  in  condemning  the 
clause  "  as  anti-republican,  as  wrong  on  general  principles  of  civil 
polity,  and  as  unjust  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  non-slaveholding  states." 
The  legislature  could  not  emancipate,  even  if  it  should  be  ready  to 
indemnify  fully  their  owners.  It  was  "  to  foreclose,  in  advance,  the 
progress  of  civilization  and  of  liberty  forever."  He  had  been  asked  if 
he  would  violate  the  compromise  under  which  Missouri  had  entered  the 
union.  He  said  Massachusetts  had  never  assented  to  that  compromise. 
Most  of  her  representatives  had  voted  against  it ;  and  those  who  had 
voted  for  it  had  been  disavowed  and  denounced  at  home,  and  stigma- 
tized even  here,  by  a  southern  member,  as  over-compliant  toward  the 
exactingness  of  the  south.  He  concluded  a  long  speech  with  a  severe 
and  eloquent  reply  to  a  threat  of  Mr.  Wise,  that,  if,  contrary  to  tho 
terms  of  the  Missouri  compromise,  the  north  should  impose  restrictions 
affecting  slave  property  at  the  south,  the  latter  would  be  impelled  "  to 
introduce  slavery  into  the  heart  of  the  north.'''' 

The  questions  raised  in  the  senate  as  to  the  right  of  admission  with- 
out a  previous  assent  of  congress  to  the  formation  of  a  constitution,  and 
to  the  right  of  unnaturalized  aliens  to  vote ;  as  also  the  right  of  Ark- 


660  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN, 

ansas  to  be  admitted  by  virtue  of  the  provisions  of  tlie  treaty  ceding 
Louisiana,  were  severally  discussed  in  committee  of  the  whole.  Mr. 
Hamer,  of  Ohio,  contended  that  congress  could,  by  one  act,  allow  the 
prayer  of  the  petitioners  to  become  a  state,  and  approve  their  constitu- 
tion. He  advocated  the  right  of  aliens  to  vote.  The  right  of  suffrage 
was  not  inseparably  connected  with  that  of  citizenship.  Congress  alone 
could  make  an  American  citizen  who  should  be  entitled  to  the  rights 
of  citizenship  throughout  the  union ;  but  control  over  the  right  of  suf- 
frage belonged  to  the  state. 

In  relation  to  the  right  of  Arkansas  to  admission  pursuant  to  the 
treaty  of  cession,  Mr.  Adams  said  she  had  a  right  to  come  into  the 
union,  with  her  slaves  and  her  slave  laws.  It  was  written  in  the  bond, 
and  however  he  might  lament  that  it  ever  had  been  so  written,  he  must 
faithfully  perform  its  obligations.  He  was  content  to  receive  her  as 
one  of  the  slaveholding  states ;  but  he  was  unwilling  that  congress,  in 
accepting  her  constitution,  should  even  lie  under  the  imputation  of 
assenting  to  an  article  in  the  constitution  of  a  state  which  withheld 
from  its  legislature  the  power  of  giving  freedom  to  the  slave.  The 
house  having  been  twenty  hours  in  continuous  session,  Mr.  Adams  said 
his  physical  strength  was  too  much  exhausted  to  enlarge  on  that  topic. 
When  the  bill  should  be  reported  to  the  house,  he  might  again  ask  to 
be  heard,  upon  renewing  there,  as  he  intended,  the  motion  for  that 
amendment. 

After  a  farther  continuation  of  the  debate,  amidst  considerable  con- 
fusion and  disorder,  Mr.  Adams  again  addressed  the  committee  in  favor 
of  his  amendment,  which  was,  "  that  nothing  in  this  act  should  be  con- 
strued as  an  assent  by  congress  to  the  article  in  the  constitution  of  the 
said  state  in  relation  to  slavery  and  the  emancipation  of  slaves." 

Mr.  Slade  moved  an  amendment  requiring  the  people  of  Arkansas,  by 
a  convention,  to  expunge  from  the  constitution  the  clause  prohibiting 
emancipation,  which  also  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Wise  was  opposed  to  the  course  of  the  majority  "  in  pressing  the 
question  upon  a  house,  sleepy,  tired,  and  drunk."  Being  opposed  to 
the  motion  that  the  committee  report  the  bills  to  the  house,  he  said  he 
would  speak  till  10  o'clock,  when  the  house  would  be  compelled  to  drop 
the  subject,  as  it  was  not  the  special  order  for  that  day.  He  accord- 
ingly continued  his  speech  until  that  hour,  having  several  times  given 
way  to  motions  that  the  committee  rise,  which  were  lost.  The  question 
now  arose,  whether  the  committee  were  obliged  to  rise  in  order  to  take 
up  the  special  order.  After  some  discussion,  and  the  reading  of  the 
rules,  the  motion  to  rise  was  negatived.  Mr.  Wise  then  resumed  his 
remarks,  and  concluded  at  a  little  after  1 1  o'clock. 


RECOGNITION    OF    THE    INDEPENDENCE    OF   TEXAS.  661 

Mr.  M'Keiman,  of  Pennsylvania,  having  obtained  the  floor,  said,  the 
members  were  evidently  worn  out  by  this  protracted  sitting,  (twenty- 
five  hours;)  many  had  not  slept,  and  others  had  not  broken  their  fast. 
We  have,  Mid  he,  fought  the  bill  manfully,  and  done  our  best  to  stave 
off  the  decision  upon  it.  My  friend  from  Virginia,  especially,  ha? 
fought  it  hard  and  long,  and  has,  in  fact,  verified  the  old  adage,  a  leaff 
dog  for  a  long  chase.  I  hope,  sir,  the  committee  will  rise  and  report 
the  bills,  and  that  we  shall  adjourn  over  until  to-morrow.  His  motion 
to  that  effect  was  carried. 

Subsequently,  (June  13,)  in  the  house,  Mr.  Adams  offered  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Michigan  bill,  reserving  to  that  state  the  rights  and  limits 
secured  to  the  territory  by  the  ordinance  of  1787,  which,  he  contended, 
settled  the  boundaries  of  the  states  of  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Ohio,  with 
that  of  the  territories  north  of  those  states,  definitively  and  forever : 
and  the  boundaries  could  not  be  altered  without  the  consent  of  congress, 
the  states  and  territories  interested,  and  Virginia  (the  state  which  ceded 
that  portion  of  territory).  The  bill  before  the  house  altered  the  boun- 
daries between  Ohio  and  Michigan,  to  the  injury  of  the  latter,  and  io 
violation  of  the  original  compact.     The  amendment  was  lost. 

The  Michigan  bill  was  ordered  to  a  third  reading  by  153  yeas,  to  45 
nays.  Of  the  minority^  fifteen  were  from  slave  states,  chiefly  IMaryland, 
Virginia,  and  Kentucky.  On  ordering  the  Arkansas  bill  to  a  third 
reading,  the  vote  was,  143  to  50.  Of  the  negatives,  two  only  were  from 
slave  states ;  Underwood,  of  Kentucky,  and  Lewis  Williams,  of  North 
Carolina ;  both  of  whom  voted  also  against  the  Michigan  bill.  Mr. 
Adams,  also,  voted  against  both.  Much  of  the  opposition  to  these  bills 
was  designed  to  postpone  the  admission  of  the  new  states,  rather  than  to 
reject  them.  After  the  presidential  election  of  that  year,  a  still  smaller 
negative  vote  would  have  been  given. 

In  the  spring  of  1836,  the  question  of  the  independence  of  Texas  was 
agitated  in  congress.  Emigation  from  the  United  States  to  that  country 
had  boon  going  on  for  several  years,  until  the  population  amounted  to 
upwards  of  50,000,  a  majority  of  which  was  from  the  United  States. 
Most  or  all  of  the  states  had  contributed  to  this  population,  but  much 
the  larger  portion  was  from  the  south-western  states.  A  revolution  had 
been  for  some  time  in  progress ;  and  independence  had  been  declared  in 
March,  1836,  about  the  time  of  the  horrid  massacres  at  Alamo  and 
Goliad,  when  the  entire  opposing  forces  of  the  Texans  had  been  slaugh- 
tered in  cold  blood. 

In  May,  intelligence  reached  Washington  of  the  victory  at  San 
Jacinto  of  the  Texans  under  Gen.  Houston  over  the  Mexicans.  A  strong 
fiympathy  in  behalf  of  the  Texans,  which  had  for  some  time  been  spread- 


662  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ing  through  the  union,  was  now  extensively  expressed  in  petitions  to  con- 
gress for  a  recognition  of  the  independence  of  Texas ;  an  act  to  which 
congress  was  already  strongly  predisposed. 

Mr.  Walker,  of  Mississippi,  moved  the  reference  of  the  memorials  and 
petitions  on  the  subject  to  the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  saying  that 
if  the  accounts  from  Texas  were  official,  he  would  have  moved  for  the 
immediate  recognition  of  her  independence. 

Mr.  Webster  thought  it  the  duty  of  our  government  to  acknowledge 
the  independence  of  Texas,  if  it  had  a  government  de  facto.  But  the 
time  and  manner  of  doing  so  were  matters  proper  for  grave  and  mature 
consideration ;  and  it  would  not  be  best  to  act  with  precipitation.  If 
the  information  received  was  true,  they  would  hear  from  Texas  herself ; 
for  as  soon  as  she  felt  that  she  was  a  country,  and  had  a  government,  she 
would  naturally  present  her  claims  for  recognition.  It  might  not  be 
necessary  to  wait  for  that  event ;  but  he  thought  it  discreet  to  do  so. 
He  would  be  one  of  the  first  to  acknowledge  the  independence  of  Texas 
on  reasonable  proof  that  she  had  established  a  government.  Attempts 
might  be  made  by  some  European  government  to  obtain  a  cession  of  Texas 
from  Mexico. 

Mr.  King,  of  Alabama,  thought  it  did  not  become  wise  and  prudent 
men,  bound  to  preserve  the  honor  and  faith  of  the  country,  to  be  hurried 
along  by  the  effervescence  of  feeling,  and  to  abandon  our  established 
course  toward  foreign  powers.  We  had  uniformly  recognized  the  exist- 
ing governments,  without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  they  were  despotic 
or  constitutional.  Having  satisfied  ourselves  that  a  government  exists, 
we  look  no  further,  but  recognize  it  as  it  is. 

Mr.  Calhoun  took  ultra  ground,  advocating  both  immediate  recogni- 
tion, and  immediate  admission  into  the  union,  and  hoping  it  would  be 
done  at  the  present  session.  He  mentioned  as  *'  powerful  reasons"  for 
admission,  that  "  the  southern  states,  owning  a  slave  population,  were 
deeply  interested  in  preventing  that  country  from  having  the  power  to 
annoy  them  ;  and  the  navigating  and  manufacturing  interests  of  the  north 
and  east  were  equally  interested  in  making  it  a  pa,rt  of  the  union." 

Mr,  Brown,  of  North  Carolina,  thought  our  national  character  worth 
more  than  all  Mexican  territory  or  wealth ;  and  it  behooved  us  to  act 
with  wisdom  and  circumspection.  The  sacred  obligations  of  justice  and 
good  faith,  formed  the  indispensable  basis  of  a  nation's  character,  great- 
ness, and  freedom,  and  without  which,  no  people  could  long  preserve  the 
blessings  of  self-government. 

Mr.  Rives  counseled  "  moderation,  calmness  and  dignity,"  and  recom- 
mended a  reference  of  the  subject  to  the  committee  on  foreign  relations. 

Mr.  Niles  also  recommended  caution.     We  should  regard  our  national 


RECOGNITION    OF    THE    INDEPENDENCE   OF    TEXAS.  663 

faith.  A  precipitate  acknowledgment  of  the  independence  of  Texas 
might  expose  our  government  to  a  suspicion  of  having  encouraged  the 
enterprises  of  our  citizens  who  had  volunteered  in  aiding  the  Texans. 
And  this  suspicijn  would  be  greatly  strengthened  by  our  following  the 
recognition  by  annexation. 

The  memorials  were  referred.  The  committee  consisted  of  Messrs. 
Clay,  King,  of  G-eorgia,  Tallmadgc,  Mangum  and  Porter.  On  the  18th 
of  June,  the  committee  reported  a  resolution  in  favor  of  acknowledging 
the  independence  of  Texas,  "  whenever  satisfactory  information  should 
be  received  that  it  had  in  successful  operation  a  civil  government,  capa- 
ble of  performing  the  duties  and  fulfilling  the  obligations  of  an  inde- 
pendent power." 

Mr.  Southard,  who  seemed  indisposed  to  encourage  Mr.  Calhoun's 
idea  of  annexation  with  the  view  of  maintaining  "  the  balance  of  power, 
and  the  perpetuation  of  our  institutions,"  having  reference,  doubtless,  to 
the  increase  of  the  political  power  of  slavery,  wished  it  understood,  that 
his  vote  would  relate  to  the  independence  of  Texas,  not  to  its  admission. 
The  contemplated  recognition  might  at  the  proper  time  be  justified ;  the 
latter  might  be  found  to  be  opposed  by  the  highest  and  strongest  con- 
siderations of  interest  and  duty.  He  would  then  discuss  neither ;  nor 
was  he  willing  that  the  remarks  of  the  senator  should  lead,  in  or  out  of 
that  chamber,  to  the  inference  that  all  who  voted  for  the  resolution  con- 
curred with  him  in  opinion. 

Mr.  Benton  advocated  a  continuance  of  our  established  policy  of  strict 
neutrality.  Mexico  was  our  nearest  neighbor,  dividing  with  us  the  con- 
tinent of  North  America,  and  possessing  the  elements  of  a  great  power. 
Our  boundaries  were  co-terminous  for  two  thousand  miles.  We  had 
inland  and  maritime  commerce.  She  had  mines  ;  we  had  ships.  Upon 
each  were  imposed  the  duties  of  reciprocal  friendship.  Merchandise  was 
carried  from  New  Orleans  to  Mexican  ports,  from  which  the  return  was 
in  the  precious  metals.  Of  the  ten  millions  and  three-quarters  of  silver 
coin  and  bullion  received  from  abroad  the  last  year,  eight  millions  and 
one-quarter  came  from  Mexico  alone.  She  had  thus  far  no  cause  of 
complaint ;  nor  did  the  present  motion  depart  from  our  neutral  course, 
as  a  recognition  was  made  contingent  upon  the  de  facto  independence  of 
Texas.  A  separation  between  Texas  and  Mexico  was  certain  to  take 
place.  They  had  no  affinities.  The  rich  and  deep  cotton  and  sugar 
lands  of  Texas  presented  no  attractions  to  the  mining  and  pastoral  popu- 
lation of  Mexico.  Within  a  few  years  the  settlement  of  this  planting 
region  had  been  begun  by  another  race.  Sooner  or  later  a  separation 
would  be  inevitable.  Mr.  B,  denied  the  assertion  elsewhere  made,  that 
this  was  a  war  for  the  extension  of  slavery.     The  settlers  in  Texas  had 


^4  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

gone  to  live  under  a  government  similar  to  that  which  they  had  left 
behind.  The  government  had  been  changed,  and  attempts  had  been 
made  to  reduce  the  people  to  unconditional  submission.  The  revolt 
was  just  in  its  origin ;  it  had  illustrated  the  Anglo-Saxon  character,  and 
given  it  new  titles  to  the  respect  and  admiration  of  the  world. 

The  resolution  reported  by  the  committee  was  adopted  unanimously ; 
yeas,  39.  A  similar  resolution  was  reported  in  the  house  by  the  com- 
mittee on  foreign  relations  and  adopted:  yeas,  113;  nays,  22.  The 
nays  were  all  or  nearly  all  given  by  the  opponents  of  the  administration. 
All  but  one — Mr.  Milligan,  of  Delaware — were  from  free  states.  It  has 
been  stated  as  remarkable,  that  Mr.  Adams,  who,  when  a  member  of  Mr. 
Monroe's  cabinet,  was  against  the  relinquishment  of  Texas  to  Spain  in 
the  treaty  of  1819,  by  which  Florida  was  acquired,  was,  in  1836  and  1844, 
against  its  recovery  ;  and  that  Mr.  Calhoun,  a  member  of  the  same  cabinet, 
was  in  favor  of  its  alienation,  and  subsequently  in  favor  of  its  recovery. 
Their  opposite  positions  in  relation  to  its  acquisition,  were  attributable  to 
their  different  opinions  as  to  the  policy  of  annexing  slave  territory  to  the 
union. 

At  the  next  session  of  congress,  (December  21,  1836,)  president  Jack- 
son, in  a  special  message,  advised  congress  not  to  recognize  the  inde- 
pendence of  Texas,  until  her  ability  to  protect  herself  should  be 
established,  and  there  should  be  no  longer  any  danger  of  her  being  again 
subjected,  as  had  been  our  policy  in  the  cases  of  Mexico  and  the  South 
American  states.  Since  the  capture  of  Santa  Anna,  the  Mexican  re- 
public, under  another  executive,  was  rallying  its  forces  under  a  new 
leader,  and  menacing  a  fresh  invasion  to  recover  its  lost  dominion. 
Several  circumstances,  he  said,  required  us  to  act  with  unwonted  caution. 
Many  of  our  citizens  would  be  anxious  for  a  reiinion  of  that  territory  to 
this  country.  Most  of  its  inhabitants  were  bound  to  our  citizens  by  the 
ties  of  friendship  and  kindred  blood.  They  had  instituted  a  govern- 
ment similar  to  our  own.  They  had,  moreover,  resolved,  on  the  recog- 
nition by  us  of  their  independence,  to  seek  for  admission  into  the  union. 
They  would  also  ask  us  to  acknowledge  their  title  to  the  territory,  with 
the  avowed  design  to  treat  of  its  transfer  to  the  United  States.  A  too 
early  movement  might  subject  us  to  the  imputation  of  seeking  to  estab- 
lish the  claims  of  our  neighbors  to  a  territory  with  a  view  to  its  subse- 
quent acquisition  by  ourselves. 

Notwithstanding  this  caution  of  the  president  against  a  premature 
acknowledgment  of  the  independence  of  Texas,  the  senate,  on  the  1st 
of  March,  adopted  a  resolution  declaring  the  acknowledgment  expedient 
and  proper,  23  to  19.  In  the  house  a  similar  resolution  was  laid  on  the 
table,  98  to  86.     Subsequently,  however,  the  bill  making  appropriations 


CLAIMS    AGAINST    MEXICO.  665 

for  civil  and  diplomatic  expenses,  was  so  amended  as  to  provide  a  "  salary 
and  outfit  of  a  diplomatic  agent^to  be  sent  to  the  government  of  Texas, 
whenever  the  president  should  receive  satisfactory  evidence  that  Texas 
was  an  independent  power,  and  that  it  was  expedient  to  appoint  such  a 
minister."     Yeas,  171;  nays,  76. 

Apprehensions  were  about  this  time  entertained  of  an  interruption  of 
the  amicable  relations  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico.  A  treaty 
of  amity,  commerce  and  navigation  had  been  concluded  between  the  two 
republics,  the  5th  of  April,  1831.  Since  that  time  numerous  injuries 
had  been  committed  upon  the  persons  and  property  of  our  citizens,  and 
insults  had  been  offered  to  our  flag ;  and  our  demands  for  satisfaction 
and  redress  had  proved  unavailing.  One  of  the  causes  of  the  delay,  it 
was  presumed,  was  the  distracted  condition  of  the  internal  affairs  of  that 
country.  To  this  cause  had  recently  been  added  the  aid  afforded  by 
citizens  of  the  United  States  to  the  revolution  in  Texas,  with  the  sup- 
posed connivance  or  encouragement  of  the  government. 

On  the  7th  of  February,  1837,  the  president  called  the  attention  of 
congress  to  the  subject,  by  a  special  message,  in  which  he  stated,  that  the 
numerous  injuries  above  mentioned,  "  independent  of  recent  insults  to 
this  government  and  people  by  the  late  extraordinary  Mexican  minister," 
(who  had  suddenly  taken  his  departure,)  "  would  justify,  in  the  eyes  of 
all  nations,  immediate  war."  He  said,  however,  "  considering  the  pre- 
sent embarrassed  condition  of  that  country,  we  should  act  with  both 
wisdom  and  moderation,  by  giving  to  Mexico  one  more  opportunity  to 
atone  for  the  past,  before  we  take  redress  into  our  own  hands."  And  he 
recommended  an  act  authorizing  reprisals  and  the  use  of  the  naval  force 
by  the  executive  against  Mexico,  if  she  should  refuse  to  come  to  an 
amicable  adjustment  of  the  matters  in  controversy  upon  another  demand 
made  from  on  board  one  of  our  vessels  of  war  on  the  coast  of  Mexico. 

The  message  was  referred  in  both  houses  to  the  committees  on  foreign 
relations.  Neither  committee  reported  in  favor  of  the  act  asked  for  by 
the  president,  but  both  reported  resolutions  in  favor  of  another  demand 
for  a  redress  of  grievances  before  coercive  measures  were  adopted.  The 
senate  committee  considered  it  contrpy  to  a  provision  of  the  treaty  with 
Mexico,  that  "  neither  of  the  contracting  parties  will  order  or  authorize 
any  acts  of  reprisal,  nor  declare  war  against  the  other,  on  complaint  of 
injuries  or  damages,  until  the  party  considering  itself  offended  shall 
first  have  presented  to  the  other  a  statement  of  such  injuries  or  damages, 
verified  by  competent  proofs,  and  demanded  justice  and  satisfaction,  and 
the  same  shall  have  been  either  refused  or  unreasonably  delayed."  The 
presidential  term  of  Gen.  Jackson  closing  with  the  expiration  of  this 
session,  the  prosecution  of  our  claims  against  Mexico  devolved  upon 
Mr.  Van  Buren. 


666  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


CHAPTER  LIY. 

SPECIE    CIRCULAR. MEETING-     OF     CONGRESS. RESOLUTION     TO     RESCIND 

THE     CIRCULAR. VETO. BENTON's     EXPUNGING     RESOLUTION. PRESI- 
DENTIAL   ELECTION. 

Several  orders  were  this  year  (1836)  issued  from  the  treasury 
department  to  the  receivers  and  disbursers  of  the  public  moneys  and 
to  the  deposit  banks,  in  relation  to  the  receipt  and  payment  of  specie. 
The  first  of  these  orders,  dated  22d  February,  1836,  was  intended  to 
diminish  the  circulation  of  small  bank  notes,  and  to  substitute  specie, 
especially  gold,  for  such  notes.  The  receipt  of  bank  notes  of  a  denomi- 
nation less  than  five  dollars  had  been  prohibited  after  the  30th  of  Sep- 
tember, 1835;  and  the  present  order  prohibited  their  payment  to  any 
public  officer  or  creditor.  And  unless  otherwise  prescribed  by  law,  no 
such  notes  of  a  less  denomination  than  ten  dollars  were  to  be  received 
or  paid  after  the  4th  of  July  next.  And  the  deposit  banks  were  required, 
in  the  payment  of  all  demands  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars,  to 
pay  one-fifth  in  gold  coin,  if  it  should  be  preferred  by  the  creditor.  And 
they  were  requested  not  to  issue,  after  the  4th  of  July,  notes  less  than 
five  dollars,  nor  after  the  3rd  of  March,  1837,  any  less  than  ten  dollars. 
The  alleged  object  of  this  regulation  was,  "to  render  the  currency  of 
the  country  more  safe,  sound  and  uniform." 

This  order  was  followed,  on  the  ilth  of  July,  1836,  by  another,  the 
famed  "  specie  circular,"  which  produced  a  more  intense  sensation, 
probably,  than  any  other  political  event  since  the  removal  of  the  deposits. 
In  anticipation  of  the  winding  up  of  the  business  of  the  bank  of  the 
United  States,  and  notwithstanding  the  efforts  of  the  administration  to 
discourage  the  issue  and  circulation  of  paper  money,  an  unprecedented 
increase  of  the  number  of  state  banks  took  place.  For  the  35  millions 
of  bank  capital  withdrawn  from  use  by  the  expiration  of  the  national 
bank,  state  bank  capital  was  created  to  several  times  that  amount.  The 
facility  of  obtaining  bank  accommodations  encouraged  speculations  of  all 
kinds  to  an  extent  never  before  known,  especially  in  landed  property. 
The  annual  receipts  from  sales  of  the  public  lands,  had  risen  within  a 
few  years  from  less  than  four  millions  to  three  and  four  times  that 
amount !  These  lands  were  paid  for  with  this  paper  money,  issued 
mostly  by  banks  in  distant  states,  and  therefore  not  likely  soon  to  return 
for  redemption. 

To  prevent  the  monopoly  of  the  public  lands  by  speculators,  and  to 


SPECIE    CIRCULAR. MEETING    OF    CONGRESS  667 

check  tliis  rapid  accumulation  in  the  treasury  of  paper  money,  mucli  of 
which,  it  was  apprehended,  would  prove  inconvertible,  this  order  was 
issued.  In  cases  of  sales,  except  to  actual  settlers,  or  residents  of  the 
state,  and  in  quantities  not  exceeding  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres, 
payment  for  lands  sold  after  the  15th  of  August,  was  to  be  made  in 
specie;  and  after  the  15th  of  December,  in  gold  and  silver,  without 
exception.  This  order  was  issued  under  an  existing  law,  by  which  the 
secretary  of  the  treasury  was  authorized  to  receive  or  to  reject  bank 
paper,  at  his  discretion.  Whether  ultimately  detrimental  to  the  pros- 
perity of  the  country  or  not,  its  immediate  effect  was  a  serious  revulsion. 

At  the  preceding  session  of  congress,  Mr.  Benton  had  submitted  a 
resolution  proposing  the  exclusion  of  all  paper-  money  in  payment  for 
public  lands ;  but  his  proposition  met  with  little  favor.  His  opinion 
of  the  effects  of  the  measure  was  thus  expressed :  "  Upon  the  federal 
government,  its  effect  would  be  to  check  the  unnatural  sale  of  the 
public  lands  to  speculators  for  paper ;  it  would  limit  the  sales  to  set- 
tlers and  cultivators;  stop  the  swelling  increases  of  paper  surpluses 
in  the  treasury;  put  an  end  to  all  projects  for  disposing  of  surpluses ; 
and  relieve  all  anxiety  for  the  fate  of  the  public  moneys  in  the  deposit 
banks.  Upon  the  new  states,  where  the  public  lands  are  situated,  its 
effects  would  be  most  auspicious.  It  would  stop  the  flood  of  paper  with 
which  they  are  inundated,  and  bring  in  a  steady  stream  of  gold  and  sil- 
ver in  its  place."  The  settlers,  too,  he  said,  would  be  relieved  from  the 
competition  of  speculators  who  came  "with  bales  of  bank  notes  bor- 
rowed upon  condition  of  carrying  them  far  away,  and  turning  them  loose 
where  many  would  be  lost,  and  never  get  back  to  the  bank  that  issued 
them." 

The  circular  was  issued  only  one  week  after  the  adjournment  of  con- 
gress ;  having  been  purposely  withheld,  as  Mr.  Benton  says,  to  avoid 
any  interference  of  congress,  a  majority  of  both  houses  being  known  to  be 
opposed  to  the  measure.  A  majority  of  the  cabinet  also  were  opposed  to  it. 

The  2d  session  of  the  24th  congress  commenced  on  the  5th  day  of 
December,  1836.  Being  a  short  session,  and  the  last  under  the  admin- 
istration of  Gen.  Jackson,  few  acts  of  importance  were  passed. 

The  president,  in  his  message,  expressed  his  disapprobation  of  the 
deposit  act  of  the  last  session,  which  had  "  received  a  reluctant  approval." 
He  spoke  at  length  against  the  distribution  principle,  and  the  act  in  par- 
ticular. A  prominent  objection  to  it  was  the  rule  of  apportionment 
which  it  had  adopted,  which  was  unequal  and  unjust.  Instead  of  a  dis- 
tribation  in  proportion  to  the  population  of  each  state,  the  rule  pre- 
scribed by  the  constitution  for  the  apportionment  of  representatives 
and  direct  taxes,  the  money  was  to  be  divided  among  the  states  accord- 


668  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ing  to  their  federal  representation,  both  senators  and  representatives. 
Delaware,  for  example,  was  entitled  to  but  one  representative  for  her 
population  ;  but  her  two  senators  being  included  in  the  basis  for  distri- 
bution, gave  her  more  than  double  the  amount  she  would  receive  had 
the  apportionment  been  made  according  to  population.  He  recom- 
mended the  adoption  of  some  measure  to  prevent  the  accumulation  of 
a  surplus  making  a  division  necessary.  He  acknowledged  a  partial 
change  in  his  views,  and  gave  reasons  for  his  having  recommended  dis- 
tribution in  1829  and  1830.  He  discussed  the  currency  question — 
favored  a  specie  circulation,  and  discouraged  the  use  of  bank  paper.  He 
defended  the  *'  specie  circular"  and  the  destruction  of  the  bank,  as  salu- 
tary measures,  and  pronounced  the  state  banks  fully  equal  to  the  former 
in  transferring  the  public  moneys. 

He  also  called  attention  to  the  bank  of  the  United  States,  which  had, 
before  the  expiration  of  the  charter,  obtained  an  act  of  incorporation 
from  the  legislature,  and  was  now  a  state  bank.  Instead  of  proceeding 
to  wind  up  its  affairs-,  and  paying  over  to  the  government  the  amount  of 
the  stock  held  by  it,  the  president  and  directors  of  the  old  bank  had 
transferred  the  books,  papers  and  effects  to  the  new  corporation,  which 
had  entered  upon  business  as  a  continuation  of  the  old  concern. 

A  few  days  after  the  commencement  of  the  session,  Mr.  Ewing,  of  Ohio, 
introduced  into  the  senate  a  joint  resolution  "  to  rescind  the  treasury 
order  of  July  11,  1836,  and  to  prohibit  the  secretary  of  the  treasury 
from  directing  what  funds  should  be  receivable  in  payment  for  public 
lands,  and  from  making  any  discrimination  in  the  funds  so  receivable, 
between  different  individuals,  or  between  different  branches  of  the  pub- 
lic service ;  "  thus  requiring  the  same  kind  of  money  in  payment  for 
customs  as  for  lands. 

Mr.  Ewing,  in  explaining  his  reasons  for  offering  the  resolution,  said 
he  thought  other  objects  than  those  which  had  been  avowed,  were  con- 
templated by  the  issuing  of  the  circular.  It  had  been  foreseen  before 
congress  met,  that  some  measure  would  be  attempted  to  check  the  ac- 
cumulation of  public  money  in  the  hands  of  the  executive.  "When  the 
distribution  was  brought  forward,  it  was  positively  asserted,  that  there 
would  be  no  surplus  revenue ;  but  when  these  statements  were  contra- 
dicted by  the  rapid  influx  of  public  money,  it  was  declared  that  the 
whole  surplus  would  be  required  for  the  necessities  of  the  country. 
And  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  had,  in  his  report  of  December, 
under-estimated  the  probable  amount  in  the  treasury  the  1st  of  January 
thereafter,  by  many  millions — an  error  so  gross  as  scarcely  to  be  attri- 
butable to  inadvertence.  When  other  expedients  had  failed,  only  seven 
days  after  the  adjournment  of  congress,  the  order  was  issued,  thus  chang- 


RESOLUTION    TO    RESCIND    THE    CIRCULAR.  669 

ing,  without  the  advice  of  congress,  the  character  of  the  funds  to  be 
derived  from  one  of  the  greatest  sources  of  revenue. 

The  people  had  been  told  that  the  evils  they  suffered  were  attribut- 
able to  the  distribution  bill.  But  they  well  understood  the  true  source 
of  the  evil  to  be  the  treasury  circular.  One  object  of  those  who  advised 
the  act,  was  to  limit  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  and  raise  their  prices  ; 
and  the  order  had  effected  the  object,  and  benefited  the  speculators,  and 
the  deposit  banks  from  which  they  had  borrowed  the  money.  Another 
object  of  the  order  was  to  save  the  deposit  banks  from  failure.  It  had 
been  said  by  senators  that  the  distribution  bill  would  break  many  of 
these  banks.  This  order  was  therefore  intended  to  collect  specie  in  the 
land-offices,  to  be  distributed  among  these  banks  to  enable  them  to  pay 
over  the  money  to  the  states.  It  had  been  said  the  order  would  pre- 
vent the  over  issues  of  banks.  To  this  he  replied,  that  there  had  been 
no  over  issues  except  by  the  deposit  banks;  and  these  would  not 
be  affected  by  the  order,  but  would  be  relieved  by  the  aid  of  this  specie 
from  the  effect  of  their  improvident  loans.  The  increase  of  the  issues 
of  the  western  banks  which  had  taken  place  within  the  last  few  years, 
was  no  greater  than  the  increasing  commerce  of  the  country  had  de- 
manded. When  the  order  was  issued,  the  banks  were  compelled  to  stop 
their  loans,  and  push  their  creditors,  and  thus  the  whole  commerce  of 
the  west  had  been  crippled. 

Mr.  Benton,  in  reply,  said  in  reference  to  the  surplus  remaining  in 
the  treasury,  that  fifteen  or  sixteen  millions  of  it  were  already  appropri- 
ated, but  had  been  kept  there  because  the  appropriations  at  the  last 
session  had  been  so  long  delayed  as  not  to  leave  time  for  the  money  to 
be  expended.  If  the  appropriations  had  been  made  in  time,  there  would 
have  been  no  greater  surplus  than  often  before.  The  existing  surplus 
had  been  created  by  congress  itself.  He  regarded  the  present  movement 
against  the  circular  as  being  dictated  by  the  same  motives  as  that  of 
1833  against  the  removal  of  the  deposits.  This,  however,  was  but  an 
impotent  affair  compared  to  that.  "Then,"  said  Mr.  B.,  "we  had  a 
magnificent  panic ;  now,  nothing  but  a  miserable  starveling !  ....  a 
mere  church-mouse  concern — a  sort  of  dwarfish,  impish  imitation  of  the 
gigantic  spectre  which  stalked  through  the  land  in  1833." 

Mr.  B.  referred  to  a  letter  from  Mr.  Biddle,  and  a  late  speech  of  Mr. 
Clay  in  Lexington,  in  relation  to  the  treasury  order,  in  which  they  had 
"  given  out  the  programme  for  the  institution  of  the  little  panic ;  and 
the  proceeding  against  the  president  for  violating  the  laws ;  and  against 
the  treasury  order  itself  as  the  cause  of  the  new  distress."  Such  was 
the  construction  which  he  gave  to  the  letter  and  the  speech  of  these 
gentlemen.     Considering  the  existing  state  of  things  as  chargeable  to 


670  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tho  bank  and  its  friends,  and  designed  to  aid  them  in  getting  a  renewal 
of  its  charter  as  a  remedy  for  the  evils  which  they  had  themselves 
created,  he  said :  ^'  There  is  no  safety  for  the  federal  revenues  but  in 
the  total  exclusion  of  local  paper,  and  that  from  every  branch  of  the 
revenue — customs,  lands,  and  post-ofl&ce.  There  is  no  safety  for  the 
national  finances  but  in  the  constitutional  medium  of  gold  and  silver. 
After  forty  years  of  wandering  in  the  wilderness  of  paper  money,  we 
have  approached  the  confines  of  the  constitutional  medium.  Seventy-five 
millions  of  specie  in  the  country,  with  the  prospect  of  an  annual  increase 
of  ten  or  twelve  millions  for  the  next  four  years ;  three  branch  mints  to 
commence  next  spring,  and  the  complete  restoration  of  the  gold  currency, 
announce  the  success  of  president  Jackson's  great  measures  for  the  reform 
of  the  currency,  and  vindicate  the  constitution  from  the  libel  of  having  pre- 
scribed an  impracticable  currency.  The  success  is  complete ;  and  there 
is  no  way  to  thwart  it,  but  to  pulldown  the  treasury  order,  and  to  reopen 
the  public  lands  to  the  inundation  of  paper  money.  Of  this,  it  is  not  to 
be  dissembled,  there  is  great  danger.  Four  deeply  interested  classes  are 
at  work  to  do  it — speculators,  local  banks.  United  States  bank,  and  poli- 
ticians out  of  power.  They  may  succeed  :  but  I  will  not  despair.  The 
darkest  hour  of  night  is  just  before  the  break  of  day;  and  through  the 
gloom  ahead,  I  see  the  bright  vision  of  the  constitutional  currency  erect, 
radiant  and  victorious.  If  reform  measures  go  on,  gold  and  silver  will 
be  gradually  and  temperately  restored ;  if  reforms  are  stopped,  then  the 
paper  runs  riot,  and  explodes  from  its  own  expansion." 

Mr.  Crittenden  admitted  that  the  deposit  banks  had  been  strengthened 
by  the  order,  as  had  been  asserted  by  Mr.  Benton,  but  it  was  at  the  ex- 
pense of  all  the  other  banks  in  the  country.  The  specie  was  collected 
and  carried,  into  the  vaults  of  the  former,  and  went  to  disturb  and  em- 
barrass the  general  circulation  of  the  country,  and  to  produce  the  pecu- 
niary difiiculty  felt  in  all  quarters  of  the  union.  The  distress  was  at 
least,  through  the  west,  attributed  to  that  cause.  The  senator  from 
Missouri  supposed  the  order  had  produced  no  part  of  the  pressure.  If 
not,  what  had  it  produced  ?  Had  it  increased  the  specie  in  actual  and 
general  circulation  ?  If  it  had  done  no  evil,  what  good  had  it  done  ? 
So  far  as  it  had  operated  at  all,  it  had  been  to  derange  the  state  of  the 
currency,  and  to  give  it  a  direction  inverse  to  the  course  of  business. 
Our  great  commercial  cities  were  the  natural  repositories  where  money 
centered  and  settled.  There  it  was  wanted,  and  was  more  valuable,  than 
in  the  interior.  Any  intelligent  business  man  in  the  west  would  rather 
have  money  paid  him  for  a  debt  in  New  York,  than  at  his  own  door. 
Hence,  forcing  the  specie  against  the  natural  course  of  business  from 
east  to  west  was  beneficial  to  none,  injurious  to  all.     This  course,  he 


RESOLUTION    TO    RESCIND    THE    CIRCULAR.  671 

said,  might  be  disturbed  for  a  time,  but  it  was  like  forcing  the  needle 
from  the  pole :  turn  it  round  and  round  as  often  as  you  pleased,  if  left 
to  itself,  it  would  still  settle  at  the  north.  Men  might  as  well  escape 
from  the  physical  necessities  of  their  nature  as  from  the  laws  which  gov- 
erned the  movements  of  finance  ;  mid  the  man  who  professed  to  reverse 
or  dispense  with  the  one  was  no  greater  quack  than  he  who  made  the 
same  professions  with  regard  to  the  other.  The  distribution  bill  had 
been  charged  with  the  mischief ;  and  he  admitted  that  the  manner  in 
which  the  government  was  attempting  to  carry  that  law  into  effect,  might' 
in  part  have  furnished  grounds  for  such  a  supposition ;  and  he  had  no 
doubt  that  it  had  aggravated  the  pecuniary  distress  of  the*country. 

Mr.  AYebster  regarded  the  principles  of  Mr.  Benton  respecting  cur- 
rency as  ultra  and  impracticable  ;  looking  to  a  state  of  things  not  desira- 
ble in  itself,  even  if  it  were  practicable ;  and  if  it  were  desirable,  as 
being  beyond  the  power  of  the  government  to  bring  about.  The  ques- 
tion was  now  raised,  whether  these  principles  were  to  prevail  against 
those  which  had  long  been  established  in  this  country ;  and  it  would 
soon  be  decided,  so  far  as  the  senate  was  concerned.  A  new  adminis- 
tration was  about  to  come  in.  While  it  receives  the  power  and  patron- 
age of  the  past,  would  it  inherit  also  its  topics  and  projects  ?  Would 
it  keep  up  the  avowal  of  the  same  objects  and  schemes,  especially  in 
regard  to  the  currency  ?  The  order  was  prospective,  and,  on  the  face  of 
it,  perpetual.  Was  it  to  be  the  rule  under  the  ensuing  administration  ? 
The  country  was  interested  in  these  questions. 

It  was  remarkable,  said  Mr.  W.,  that  frauds,  speculation  and  monopoly 
should  have  become  so  enormous  and  notorious  on  the  11th  of  July,  as 
to  demand  executive  interference,  and  yet  not  have  reached  such  a  height 
as  to  make  it  proper  to  lay  the  subject  before  congress,  which  had  ad- 
journed only  seven  days  before.  And  what  made  it  more  remarkable 
was,  that  the  president  had,  in  his  annual  message,  spoken  of  the  rapid 
sales  of  the  public  lands  as  one  of  the  most  gratifying  proofs  of  general 
prosperity,  having  reached  "the  unexpected  sum  of  eleven  millions." 
How  so  dijfferent  a  view  of  things  happened  to  be  taken  at  the  two 
•  periods,  might  perhaps  be  learned  in  the  farther  progress  of  this  debate. 

The  order,  he  said,  spoke  of  the  "  evil  influence"  likely  to  result  from 
the  further  exchange  of  the  public  lands,  for  "  paper  money,"  This  was 
the  language  of  the  gentleman  from  Missouri,  who  habitually  spoke  of 
the  notes  of  all  banks,  however  solvent,  and  however  promptly  they  re- 
deemed their  notes  in  gold  and  silver,  as  "  paper  money."  The  secre- 
tary had  adopted  the  gentleman's  phrases,  which,  as  financial  language, 
were  quite  new.  By  paper  money  in  its  obnoxious  sense,  he  (Mr.  W.) 
understood  paper  issues  on  credit  alone,  without  capital,  resting  only  on 


672  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  good  faith  and  ability  of  those  who  issue  it,  as  was  the  paper  money 
of  revolutionary  times,  and  as  may  have  been  the  character  of  the  paper 
of  particular  institutions  since.  But  the  notes  of  banks  of  competent 
capitals  and  duly  restricted,  made  payable  on  demand  in  gold  and  silver, 
and  so  paid,  were  paper  money  only  in  this  sense,  that  they  were  made 
of  paper,  and  circulated  as  money.  If  this  language  of  the  order  was 
authentic,  and  all  notes  were  to  be  hereafter  regarded  and  stigmatized  as 
mere  "  paper  money,"  the  sooner  the  country  knew  it,  the  better. 

After  a  farther  discussion  of  the  subject,  it  was  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee on  public  lands  ;  and  on  the  18th  of  January,  1837,  Mr.  Walker, 
from  that  committee,  made  a  report,  accompanied  by  a  bill,  providing 
that  the  government  should  receive  the  paper  of  such  banks  only  as 
should  thereafter  issue  no  notes  less  than  five  dollars,  and  after  the  30th 
of  December,  1839,  none  less  than  ten  dollars,  and  as  should  pay  their 
notes  on  demand  in  gold  and  silver.  They  were  also  required,  under 
the  control  of  the  secretary,  to  pass  the  paper  thus  received  to  the  credit 
of' the  United  States  as  cash.  The  provisions  of  the  bill  extended  to  the 
receipt  of  money  for  duties,  taxes,  and  debts.  It  was  subsequently 
amended,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Rives,  so  as  to  restrict  these  banks  to  the 
issue,  after  1841,  of  notes  not  less  than  twenty  dollars  ;  and  on  motion  of 
Mr.  Clay  so  as  to  rescind  the  treasury  order.  In  this  shape  it  passed  the  sen- 
ate :  ayes,  41 ;  noes,  5 — Messrs.  Benton,  Linn,  Morris,  Buggies,  Wright. 

Mr.  Calhoun  declined  voting,  assigning  as  a  reason,  that  this  measure 
could  not  arrest  the  downward  course  of  'the  country.  It  was  doubtful 
whether  any  skill  and  wisdom  could  restore  the  currency  to  soundness. 
An  explosion  he  considered  inevitable,  and  so  much  greater,  the  longer 
it  should  be  delayed.  Being  unprepared  to  assign  his  reasons  for  the 
vote  he  might  give,  he  was  unwilling  to  vote  at  all. 

The  bill  passed  the  house  also  by  a  large  majority :  the  vote  on  its 
engrossment  for  a  third  reading,  was,  ayes,  143;  noes,  59.  Its  passage 
was  on  the  2d  of  March,  the  day  before  that  which  terminated  the  con- 
stitutional term  of  congress  and  of  the  administration.  It  was  sent  to 
the  president,  who  returned  it  to  the  senate,  with  the  objection,  that  its 
provisions  were  "  so  complex  and  uncertain,  that  he  deemed  it  necessary 
to  obtain  the  opinion  of  the  attorney-general  on  several  important  ques- 
tions touching  its  construction  and  effect.  That  officer  concurring  with 
him  that  its  construction  would  be  "  a  subject  of  much  perplexity  and 
doubt,"  he  did  "  not  think  it  proper  to  approve  a  bill  so  liable  to  a 
diversity  of  interpretations." 

A  bill  was  also  passed  by  the  senate,  "  to  prohibit  the  sales  of  public 
lands,  except  to  actual  settlers,  and  in  limited  quantities,"  27  to  23  ;  but 
in  the  house,  it  was,  on  the  2d  of  March,  laid  on  the  table,  107  to  91. 


Benton's  expunging  resolution.  673 

The  purpose  of  Mr.  Benton,  announced  on  the  passage  of  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  28th  of  March,  1834,  condemning  the  exercise  of  power  by 
the  president  in  relation  to  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  had  been  faith- 
fully carried  out,  by  his  moving,  at  each  succeeding  session,  to  expunge 
that  resolution  from  the  journal  of  the  senate.  That  motion  was  made 
at  this  session  for  the  last  time.  The  changes  which  had  taken 
place  in  that  body  in  consequence  of  resignations  and  of  the  expira- 
tion of  terms  of  senators  since  1834,  had  given  to  the  administra- 
tion party  the  predominance ;  and  nothing  but  unanimity  was  neces- 
sary to  effect  the  long  meditated  object  of  the  mover. 

The  resolution  was  debated  on  Friday  and  Saturday,  the  1 3th  and 
i4th  of  January,  1837.  Contemplating  final  action  on  the  subject  on 
Monday,  a  meeting  of  the  democratic  senators  was  held  on  Saturday,  to 
consult  on  the  manner  in  which  the  act  should  be  performed.  In  order 
to  secure  the  necessary  unanimity,  the  obliteration  of  the  resolution,  Mr. 
Benton's  favorite  mode,  was  given  up  ;  and  that  proposed  by  the  legisla- 
ture of  Virginia  adopted ;  which  was,  to  draw  black  lines  around  the 
obnoxious  resolution.  To  this  Mr.  B.  assented,  as  he  tells  us,  "  on  con- 
dition of  being  allowed  to  compose  the  epitaph,"  to  be  written  across  the 
enclosed  lines  :  "  Expunged  by  the  order  of  the  senate." 

Mr.  Benton  thus  continues  his  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the  meet- 
ing, which,  he  says,  was  held  in  the  night  at  a  famous  restaurant,  giving  to 
the  assemblage  the  air  of  a  convivial  entertainment :  "  The  agreement 
which  led  to  victory  was  then  adopted,  each  one  severally  pledging  him- 
self to  it,  that  there  should  be  no  adjournment  of  the  senate,  after  the 
resolution  was  called, until  it  was  passed;  and  that  it  should  be  called 
immediately  after  the  morning  business  of  the  Monday  ensuing.  Ex- 
pecting a  protracted  session,  extending  through  the  day  and  night,  and 
knowing  the  difficulty  of  keeping  men  steady  to  their  work  and  in  good 
humor,  when  tired  and  hungry,  the  mover  of  the  proceeding  took  care  to 
provide,  as  far  as  possible,  against  such  a  state  of  things ;  and  gave 
orders  that  night  to  have  an  ample  supply  of  cold  hams,  turkeys,  rounds 
of  beef,  pickles,  wines,  and  cups  of  hot  coffee,  ready  in  a  certain  commit- 
tee room  near  the  senate  chamber  by  four  o'clock,  on  the  afternoon  of 
Monday." 

The  subject  was  called  up  pursuant  to  arrangement ;  and  the  debate 
was  renewed  :  a  debate  less  distinguished,  perhaps,  as  a  discussion  of  con- 
stitutional and  political  principles,  than  for  the  indications  which  it  gave 
of  a  reverse  of  feeling  of  parties  in  that  body.  The  author  and  supporters 
of  the  condemnatory  resolution  of  1834,  were  about  to  witness  a  morti- 
fying exhibition — to  receive  in  turn  an  infliction  similar  to  that  which 
they  had  dealt  out  to  their  opponents  a  few  short  years  before.     The 

43 


674  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

speeches  of  the  subdued  senators  furnish  a  pretty  clear  index  to  their 
feelings  on  that  occasion. 

Mr.  Calhoun  said  :  "  No  one,  not  blinded  by  party  zeal,  can  possibly 
be  insensible  that  the  measure  proposed  is  a  violation  of  the  constitution. 
The  constitution  requires  the  senate  to  keep  a  journal;  this  resolution  goes 
to  expunge  the  journal.  If  you  may  expunge  a  part,  you  may  expunge 
the  whole  ;  and  if  it  is  expunged,  how  is  it  kept  ?  *  *  #  This  is  to 
be  done,  not  in  consequence  of  argument,  but  in  spite  of  argument.  I 
know  perfectly  well  the  gentlemen  have  no  liberty  to  vote  otherwise." 
[Mr.  Calhoun  here  alluded  to  the  instructions  which  some  senators  had 
received  from  their  state  legislatures.]  "  They  try,  indeed,  to  comfort 
their  conscience  by  saying  that  it  is  the  will  of  the  people.  It  is  no 
such  thing.  "We  all  know  how  these  legislative  returns  have  been  ob- 
tained. It  is  by  dictation  from  the  White  House.  The  president  himself, 
with  that  vast  mass  of  patronage  which  he  wields,  and  the  thousand  ex- 
pectations he  is  able  to  hold  up,  has  obtained  the  votes  of  the  state 
legislatures ;  and  this,  forsooth,  is  said  to  be  the  voice  of  the  people. 
The  voice  of  the  people  !  Sir,  can  we  forget  the  scene  which  was 
exhibited  in  this  chamber  when  that  expunging  resolution  was  first 
introduced  here  ?  Have  we  forgotten  the  universal  giving  way  of  con- 
science, so  that  the  senator  from  Missouri  was  left  alone  ?  I  see  before 
me  senators  who  could  not  swallow  that  resolution ;  and  has  its  nature 
changed  since  then  ?  Is  it  any  more  constitutional  now  than  it  was 
then  ?  Not  at  all.  But  executive  power  has  interposed.  Talk  to  me 
of  the  voice  of  the  people !  No,  sir ;  it  is  the  combination  of  patron- 
age and  power  to  coerce  this  body  into  a  gross  and  palpable  violation  of 
the  constitution.     *     *     * 

"  But  why  do  I  waste  my  breath  ?  I  know  it  is  all  utterly  vain. 
The  day  is  gone ;  night  approaches,  and  night  is  suitable  to  the  dark 
deed  we  meditate."  Mr.  C.  said  other  violations  had  been  committed; 
but  they  had  been  done  in  the  heat  of  party.  In  these,  power  had  been 
"  compelled  to  support  itself  by  seizing  upon  new  instruments  of  influ- 
ence and  patronage ;"  among  these  was  the  removal  of  the  deposits, 
which  gave  to  the  president  ample  means  of  "  rewarding  his  friends  and 
punishii:g  his  enemies."  Said  Mr.  C,  "  Something  may,  perhaps,  be 
pardoned  to  him  in  this  matter,  on  the  old  apology  of  tyrants — the  plea 
of  necessity.  Here  no  necessity  can  so  much  as  be  pretended.  This 
act  originates  in  pure,  personal  idolatry.  It  is  the  melancholy  evidence 
of  a  broken  spirit,  ready  to  bow  at  the  feet  of  power.  The  former  act 
was  such  a  one  as  might  have  been  perpetrated  in  the  days  of  Pompey 
or  Caesar  ;  but  an  act  like  this  could  never  have  been  consummated  by 
a  Roman  senate  until  the  times  of  Caligula  and  Nero." 


675 

Mr.  Clay  expressed  his  disappointment  at  the  intention  of  again  put- 
ting this  resolution  to  a  vote.  He  said  :  "  It  is,  however,  now  revived^ 
and  sundry  changes  having  taken  place  in  the  members  of  this  body,  it 
would  seem  that  the  present  design  is  to  bring  the  resolution  to  an  abso- 
lute conclusion.^'  He  concluded  his  speech  with  a  violent  denunciation 
•of  the  president  and  his  friends,  thus :  **  The  decree  has  gone  forth. 
The  deed  is  to  be  done — that  foul  deed  which,  like  the  blood-stained 
hands  of  the  guilty  Macbeth,  all  ocean's  waters  will  never  wash  out. 
Proceed,  then,  with  the  noble  work  which  lies  before  you,  and,  like  other 
skillful  executioners,  do  it  quickly.  And  when  you  have  perpetrated  it, 
go  home  to  the  people,  and  tell  them  what  glorious  honors  you  have 
achieved  for  them  and  the  country.  Tell  them  that  you  have  extin- 
guished one  of  the  brightest  and  purest  lights  that  ever  burnt  at  the 
altar  of  civil  liberty.  Tell  them  that  you  have  silenced  one  of  the 
noblest  batteries  that  ever  thundered  in  defense  of  the  constitution,  and 
bravely  spiked  the  cannon.  Tell  them  that,  henceforward,  no  matter 
^hat  daring  or  outrageous  act  any  president  may  perform,  you  have 
forever  hermetically  sealed  the  mouth  of  the  senate.  Tell  them  that  he 
may  fearlessly  assume  what  powers  he  pleases,  snatch  from  its  lawful 
custody  the  public  purse,  command  a  military  detachment  to  enter  the 
halls  of  the  capitol,  overawe  congress,  trample  down  the  constitution, 
and  raze  every  bulwark  of  freedom ;  but  that  the  senate  must  stand 
mute,  in  silent  submission,  and  not  dare  to  raise  its  opposing  voice; 
that  it  must  wait  until  a  house  of  representatives,  humbled  and  subdued 
like  itself,  and  a  majority  of  it,  composed  of  the  partisans  of  the  presi- 
dent, shall  prefer  articles  of  impeachment.  Tell  them,  finally,  that  you 
have  restored  the  glorious  doctrines  of  passive  obedience  and  non-resist- 
"ance.  And,  if  the  people  do  not  pour  out  their  indignation  and  impreca- 
tions, I  have  yet  to  learn  the  character  of  American  freemen." 

Mr.  Webster,  who  made  the  concluding  speech,  protested  against  the 
intended  act,  as  unconstitutional.  "  A  record  expunged^''  he  said,  "  is 
not  a  record  which  is  kept^  any  more  than  a  record  which  is  destroyed 
can  be  a  record  which  is  preserved.  The  part  expunged  is  no  longer 
■part  of  the  record  ;  it  has  no  longer  a  legal  existence.  It  can  not  bo 
certified  as  a  part  of  the  proceeding  of  the  senate  for  any  proof  or  evi- 
dence." He  protested  also  that  they  had  no  right  to  deprive  him  of  the 
personal  constitutional  right  of  having  his  yea  and  nay  recorded  and 
preserved  on  the  journal.  They  might  as  well  erase  the  yeas  and  nays 
on  any  other,  or  on  all  other  questions  as  on  this.  He  expressed  hw 
deep  regret  to  see  the  legislatures  of  respectable  states  instructing  their 
senators  to  vote  for  violating  the  journal  of  the  senate.  He  believed 
these  proceeding  of  states  had  their  origin  in  promptings  from  Wash- 


676  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ington ;  and  had  been  brought  about  by  the  influence  and  power  of  the 
executive  branch  of  this  government. 

"  But  this  resolution  is  to  pass.  We  expect  it.  That  cause  which 
has  been  powerful  enough  to  influence  so  many  state  legislatures,  will 
show  itself  powerful  enough,  especially  with   such  aids,  to   secure  the 

passage  of  the  resolution  here We  collect  ourselves  to  look  on, 

in  silence,  while  a  scene  is  exhibited  which,  if  we  did  not  regard  it  as  a 
ruthless  violation  of  a  sacred  instrument,  would  appear  to  us  to  be  little 
elevated  above  the  character  of  a  contemptible  farce."  The  following  is 
his  concluding  paragraph : 

"  Having  made  this  protest,  our  duty  is  performed.  We  rescue  our 
own  names,  character,  and  honor,  from  all  participation  in  this  matter ; 
and  whatever  the  wayward  character  of  the  times,  the  headlong  and 
plunging  spirit  of  party  devotion,  or  the  fear  or  the  love  of  power,  may 
have  been  able  to  bring  about  elsewhere,  we  desire  to  thank  God  that 
they  have  not,  as  yet,  overcome  the  love  of  liberty,  fidelity  to  true  re- 
publican principles,  and  a  sacred  regard  for  the  constitution,  in  that  state 
whose  soil  was  drenched  to  a  mire,  by  the  first  and  best  blood  of  the 
revolution.  Massachusetts,  as  yet,  has  not  been  conquered  ;  and  while 
we  have  the  honor  to  hold  seats  here  as  her  senators,  we  shall  never  con- 
sent to  a  sacrifice  either  of  her  rights  or  our  own.  We  shall  never  fail 
to  oppose  what  we  regard  a  plain  and  open  violation  of  the  constitution 
of  the  country ;  and  we  should  have  thought  ourselves  wholly  unworthy 
of  her  if  we  had  not,  with  all  the  solemnity  and  earnestness  in  our 
power,  protested  against  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  now  before  the 
senate." 

It  was  now  near  midnight ;  and  the  vote  was  taken  in  the  presence  of 
a  crowd  of  spectators.  There  were  yeas,  24;  nays,  19;  absent,  5. 
After  the  resolution  had  passed,  the  secretary  of  the  senate,  according 
to  order,  took  the  manuscript  journal  of  the  senate,  and  drew  a  square 
of  broad  black  lines  around  the  resolution  of  the  28th  of  March,  1834, 
and  wrote  across  it,  *'  Expunged  by  order  of  the  senate,  this  16th  day 
of  January,  1837." 

Mr.  Benton,  in  closing  his  account  of  the  transaction,  says:  "The 
gratification  of  General  Jackson  was  extreme.  He  gave  a  grand  dinner 
to  the  expungers  (as  they  were  called)  and  their  wives ;  and  being  too 
weak  to  sit  at  the  table,  he  only  met  the  company,  placed  the  '  head- 
expunger'  in  his  chair,  and  withdrew  to  his  sick  chamber.  That  ex- 
purgation !  it  was  the  '  crowning  mercy '  of  his  civil,  as  New  Orleans 
had  been  of  his  military  life  !" 

At  the  presidential  election  in  1836,  the  electoral  vote  was  divided 
upon  five  individuals.     Mr.  Van  Buren  had  been  nominated  by  a  na- 


677 

tional  democratic  convention  held  in  Baltimore,  in  February,  1835,  with 
Richard  M.  Johnson,  of  Kentucky,  for  vice-president.  This  convention 
was  held,  if  not  at  the  instance,  yet  in  accordance  with  the  previously 
expressed  wishes  of  Gen.  Jackson,  who,  as  was  well  known,  was  desirous 
that  Mr.  Yan  Buren  should  be  his  successor.  Mr.  Van  Buren  also  was 
known  to  be  in  favor  of  the  project.  No  other  national  convention  to 
nominate  a  candidate  for  president,  was  held.  Gen.  William  11.  Harri- 
son was  nominated  by  whig  conventions  in  many  of  the  states,  and  by 
the  anti-masonic  state  convention,  at  Harrisburg,  Pa.  Francis  Granger 
was  nominated  at  most  or  all  of  these  conventions  for  vice-president. 
Hugh  L.  White,  senator  in  congress  from  Tennessee,  and  a  friend  of 
Gen,  Jackson,  was  nominated  in  January,  1835,  by  the  legislature  of 
Alabama.  He  was  also  nominated  by  the  people  of  Tennessee,  in  which 
nomination  the  delegation  from  that  state  in  the  house  of  representa- 
tives in  congress  concurred,  with  the  exception  of  James  K.  Polk  and 
Cave  Johnson.  John  M'Lean,  of  Ohio,  and  Daniel  Webster,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, had  been  nominated  by  the  whig  members  of  the  legislatures 
of  these  states. 

Mr.  Yan  Buren  received  of  the  electoral  votes,  170;  Gen.  Harrison, 
73  ;  Judge  White,  26;  Mr.  Webster,  14  ;  and  Willie  P.  Mangura,  of 
North  Carolina,  11.  Total,  294.  For  vice-president,  B.  M.  Johnson,  144; 
Francis  Granger,  11 ;  John  Tyler,  47  ;  Wm.  Smith,  23.  Total,  294. 
There  would  probably  have  been  a  less  scattering  vote,  but  for  the  hope 
of  diminishing  the  chances  of  Mr.  Yan  Buren's  success  by  bringing  the 
election  into  the  house  of  representatives. 


CHAPTER  LV. 

MR.      VAN     buren's     INAUGURATION. SPECIAL     SESSION    OF    CONGRESS. 

SUB-TREASURY. OTHER    FINANCIAL    MEASURES.  " 

On  the  4th  of  March,  1837,  Martin  Yan  Buren  was  inaugurated  as 
president  of  the  United  States.  The  inauguration  was  attended  with 
the  display  usual  on  such  occasions.  He  was  accompanied  to  the  capi- 
tol  by  his  predecessor.  General  Jackson,  where  he  delivered  his  inaugural 
address,  and  took  the  oath  of  ofl&ce,  administered  by  chief  justice  Taney. 

The  inaugural  address  gave  no  indications  of  a  change  in  the  general 
policy  of  the  government.  A  prominent  topic  of  the  address  was  the 
then  agitating  question  of  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 


67!&  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN.     . 

Columbia.  He  had  been  interrogated  on  this  agitating  subject  before 
the  election;  and  he  then  declared  that,  if  elected,  he  "  must  go  into  the 
presidential  chair  the  inflexible  and  uncompromising  opponent  of  every 
attempt,  on  the  part  of  congress,  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  against  the  wishes  of  the  slaveholding  states  ;  and  also  with 
a  determination  equally  decided  to  resist  the  slightest  interference  with 
it  in  the  states  where  it  exists ;"  and  said:  "It  now  only  remains  to 
add,  that  no  bill  conflicting  with  these  views  can  ever  receive  my  consti- 
tutional sanction."  Ilis  reserve  and  caution  in  committing  himself  on 
public  measures,  was  proverbial — a  trait  of  character  familiarly  denomi- 
nated by  his  opponents,  "  non-committalism."  This  announcement,  in 
advance,  therefore,  of  his  views  and  intentions  in  relation  to  this  sub- 
ject, was  the  more  noticed,  and  was  attributed  by  his  opponents  to  the 
design  of  strengthening  his  popularity  at  the  south.  Such  announce- 
ment was  deemed  the  more  uncalled  for,  as  there  was  not  the  slightest 
probability  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  like  that  which  he  had  thus  fore- 
doomed. It  was  regarded  by  many  also  as  objectionable  in  principle — ■ 
as  an  improper  interference,  on  the  part  of  the  executive,  with  the  free- 
dom of  legislation. 

Mr.  Van  Buren's  accession  to  the  presidency  occurred  at  an  unpropi- 
tious  period.  The  pecuniary  pressure  which  followed  the  issuing  of  the 
specie  circular,  and  which  was  already  general  and  severe,  was  rapidly 
approaching  its  crisis.  This  pressure  was  extensively  regarded  as  tke 
natural  result  of  a  policy  which  he  was  pledged  to  continue.  In  May, 
the  event  for  some  time  anticipated  by  many — a  general  bank  explosion 
— took  place.  The  banks  in  the  city  of  New  York,  by  common  consent, 
suspended  specie  payments.  The  banks  in  other  cities  were  compelled 
to  adopt  the  same  course.  In  the  state  of  New  York,  the  legislature 
legalized  the  suspension  for  one  year. 

Among  the  causes  to  which  the  suspension  of  specie  payments  was 
ascribed,  were  the  diversion  of  specie  to  the  west,  and  the  drain  upon 
the  banks  in  the  Atlantic  cities  for  exportation  to  Europe^  to  pay  for 
the  excessive  importations  of  goods.  Another  cause  of  the  derangement 
of  the  currency  was  supposed  to  be  the  large  loans  made  by  the  banks 
having  on  deposit  the  surplus  revenue,  with  the  expectation  that  it  would 
remain  with  thcan  until  called  for  by  the  general  government.  Instead, 
however,  of  being  permitted  to  retain  these  funds  as  a  basis  for  the  ex- 
tension of  their  loans,  they  were  unexpectedly  demanded  for  the  purpose 
of  distribution  among  the  states. 

The  speculation  and  enormous  appreciation  of  property  during  the 
last  two  or  three  years,  was  followed  by  a  revulsion,  and  a  corresponding 
depreciation.     Mercantile  failures  in  the  commercial  cities,  as  Boston^ 


SPECIAL    SESSION    OF    CONGRESS.  679 

New  York,  and  New  Orleans,  exceeding  in  number  and  amount,  pro- 
bably, any  that  ever  occurred  within  an  equal  period  of  time,  took 
place  in  a  few  months  before  and  after  the  suspension.  Representations 
of  the  vast  depreciation  of  property,  of  the  general  prostration  of  busi- 
ness, were  made  to  the  president,  with  requests  to  rescind  the  specie 
circular,  and  to  call  an  extra  meeting  of  congress.  On  the  15th  of 
May,  a  few  days  after  the  suspension  in  the  city  of  New  York,  a  pro- 
clamation was  issued  for  convening  congress  on  the  1st  Monday  in 
September. 

But  for  the  general  suspension,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  president 
would  have  convened  congress.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  resolutions 
of  1816,  and  by  the  act  of  1836,  regulating  the  deposits,  the  federal 
officers  were  prohibited  from  receiving  or  paying  out  the  notes  of  any 
but  specie-paying  banks.  And  the  deposit  banks,  as  well  as  others, 
had  now  suspended.  Under  existing  laws,  therefore,  no  collections  or 
disbursements  of  public  moneys  could  be  made.  If  done  at  all,  it  must 
be  done  in  violation  of  law. 

Pursuant  to  the  proclamation,  congress  assembled  on  the  4th  of  Sep- 
tember, 1837.  The  president's  message  was  almost  exclusively  devoted 
to  the  banks  and  currency,  the  causes  of  the  existing  difficulties,  and 
their  remedy.  He  suggested  the  entire  disuse  of  banks  as  fiscal  agents 
of  the  government,  the  collection,  safekeeping,  transfer,  and  disburse- 
ments of  the  public  money  by  officers  of  the  government,  and  of  the 
employment  of  specie  alone  in  its  fiscal  operations.  It  was  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  sub-treasury  scheme.  He  believed  the  exclusive  use 
of  specie  a  practicable  operation.  Of  the  seventy  or  eighty  millions  in 
the  country,  ten  millions  would  be  sufficient  for  the  purpose,  if  the 
accumulation  of  a  large  surplus  revenue  were  prevented.  The  large 
increase  of  specie  since  the  act  of  1834,  had  contributed  largely  to  the 
feasibility  of  the  measure.  The  gold  coinage  alone  had  been  since 
August,  1834,  ten  millions,  which  exceeded  the  whole  coinage  at  the 
mint  during  the  thirty-one  previous  years.  By  using  specie  only  in 
government  operations,  a  demand  for  it  would  be  created,  and  its  expor- 
tation prevented. 

In  consequence  of  the  great  pecuniary  embarrassments,  there  had 
been  a  diminished  revenue  from  importations  and  the  sale  of  public 
lands,  while  the  appropriations  had  been  many  millions  more  than  had 
been  asked  for  in  former  estimates.  To  supply  the  deficiency  in  the 
treasury  thus  produced,  the  president  recommended  the  withholding  of 
the  fourth  and  last  instalment,  then  in  the  treasury,  of  $9,367,200, 
directed  by  the  act  of  June,  1836,  to  be  deposited  with  the  states  in 
October  next. 


680  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

No  measure  having  direct  reference  to  the  relief  of  the  people,  was 
recommended.  The  president  hoped,  however,  that  the  adoption  of  the 
proposed  fiscal  measures  would,  "  by  their  necessary  operation,  afford 
essential  aid  in  the  transaction  of  individual  concerns,  and  thus  yield 
relief  to  the  people  at  large,  in  a  form  adapted  to  the  nature  of  our 
government,"  He  said  :  "  Those  who  look  to  the  action  of  this  govern- 
ment for  specific  aid  to  the  citizen  to  relieve  embarrassments  arising 
from  losses  by  revulsions  in  commerce  and  credit,  lose  sight  of  the  ends 
for  which  it  was  created."  "  x\ll  communities  are  apt  to  look  to  gov- 
ernment for  too  much.  *  *  *  To  avoid  every  unnecessary  inter- 
ference with  the  pursuits  of  the  citizen,  will  result  in  more  benefit  than 
to  adopt  measures  which  could  only  assist  limited  interests,  and  are 
eagerly,  but  perhaps  naturally  sought  for,  under  the  pressure  of  tempo- 
rary circumstances." 

In  conformity  to  the  suggestions  of  the  president,  a  bill  was  reported 
in  the  senate  by  Mr.  Wright,  chairman  of  the  committee  on  finance.  It 
was  entitled,  "  A  bill  imposing  additional  duties  as  depositaries,  in  cer- 
tain cases,  on  public  officers."  It  required  all  officers  of  the  general 
government  receiving  public  moneys,  safely  to  keep,  without  loaning  or 
using  them,  until  duly  ordered  to  transfer  them  or  pay  them  out.  Bonds 
for  their  safe-keeping  were  to  be  given ;  and  their  accounts  were  to  be 
submitted  for  examination  once  a  year  or  oftener,  at  the  discretion  of 
the  secretary  of  the  treasury.  The  accounts  of  collectors  of  customs, 
receivers  of  land-offices,  and  treasurers  of  the  mints,  were  to  be  returned 
to  the  treasury  department,  quarterly  or  oftener,  at  the  discretion  of  the 
secretary.  The  same  bill  was  reported  to  the  house  of  representatives, 
by  Mr.  Cambreleng,  chairman  of  the  committee  of  ways  and  means. 
This  was  the  bill  for  the  establishment  of  the  independent  treasury^ 
commonly  called  the  sub-treasury. 

Several  other  bills  for  the  temporary  relief  of  the  government,  were 
reported,  and  promptly  acted  on  by  the  senate  :  (1.)  A  bill  to  postpone 
the  payment  of  the  fourth  instalment  of  the  deposits  with  the  states ; 
(2.)  A  bill  to  authorize  the  issue  of  treasury  notes ;  (3.)  A  bill  extend- 
ing the  time  for  the  payment  of  merchants'  bonds;  (4.)  A  bill  for 
adjusting  the  remaining  claims  on  the  deposit  banks ;  and  (5.)  A  bill  to 
authorize  merchandise  to  be  deposited  in  public  stores. 

The  bill  to  postpone  payment  of  the  deposits,  after  a  brief  debate, 
and  the  adoption  of  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  providing 
that  '^  the  three  instalments  already  paid  do  remain  on  deposit  until 
directed  by  congress,"  instead  of  being  subject  to  be  called  for  by  the 
secretary  of  the  treasury,  was  passed,  28  to  17,  and  sent  to  the  house 
for  concurrence.  The  chief  participators  in  the  debate  were  Messrs. 
AVright,  Hives,  Webster,  Buchanan,  and  Calhoun. 


SUB-TREASURY.  68 1 

Mr.  Webster  made  the  principal  speecli  against  the  bill.  He  regretted 
that  the  measures  of  the  president  and  his  secretary  regarded  only  one 
object,  the  relief  of  the  government.  The  community  also  needed 
relief  from  the  evils  which  it  suffered  :  these,  however,  were  capable  of 
a  distinct  consideration.  He  mentioned,  first,  the  wants  of  the  treasury, 
arising  from  the  stoppage  of  payments,  and  th«  falling  off  of  the  revenue. 
A  second  and  greater  evil  was  the  prostration  of  credit,  the  derangement 
of  business,  arising  from  the  suspension  of  the  local  banks.  A  third 
evil  was  the  want  of  an  accredited  paper  medium  equal  to  specie,  having 
equal  credit  over  all  parts  of  the  country.  The  secretary's  report,  as 
well  as  the  message,  regarded  exclusively  the  interest  of  the  government, 
forgetting,  or  passing  by  the  people.  He  (Mr.  W.)  rejoiced  at  the  clear 
shape  which  the  question  had  at  last  assumed.  Was  there  any  duty 
incumbent  on  the  government,  to  superintend  the  actual  currency  of  the 
country  ?  to  do  anything  but  to  regulate  the  gold  and  silver  coin  ? 
Might  it  abandon  to  the  states  and  to  the  local  banks  the  unrestrained 
issue  of  paper  for  circulation,  without  any  attempt  on  its  part  to  estab- 
lish a  paper  medium  equivalent  to  specie,  and  universally  accredited  all 
over  the  country  ? 

Mr.  W.  contended  that  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  between  the 
states  carried  with  it,  necessarily  and  directly,  the  essential  element  of 
commerce — the  currency,  the  money,  which  constituted  the  life  and  soul 
of  commerce.  Paper  money,  in  this  age,  was  an  essential  element  in  all 
trade  between  the  states ;  it  was  connected  with  all  commercial  transac- 
tions :  and  it  belonged  to  the  general  government,  and  not  to  the  state 
governments,  to  provide  for  or  regulate  the  currency  between  the  states. 
A  paper  medium  equivalent  to  coin,  and  of  equal  credit  in  all  parts  of 
the  country,  was  an  important  instrument  of  exchange.  Currency  and 
exchange  were  united  :  and  if  the  government  would  do  its  duty  on  the 
great  subject  of  the  currency,  the  mercantile  and  industrious  classes  would 
feel  the  benefit  through  all  the  operations  of  exchange. 

In  remarking  on  the  bill,  he  said  that  its  object  was  a  necessary  one  ; 
but  he  did  not  think  it  provided  the  best  mode  of  relief  The  money 
was  expected  by  the  states  ;  some  of  them  had  already  disposed  of  it  in 
advance.  And  was  it  wise  to  add  another  to  the  causes  in  operation, 
disturbing  the  business  transactions  of  society  ?  But  the  bill,  if  passed, 
would  not  essentially  aid  the  treasury.  The  secretary  himself  virtually 
acknowledged  it,  for  he  says  he  wants  other  aid,  and  asks  for  an  issue 
of  some  millions  of  treasury  notes.  He  would  therefore  get  the  money 
without  the  bill.  But  what  sort  of  notes  did  the  secretary  propose  to 
issue?  Notes  of  small  denominations,  down  even  to  twenty  dollars, 
bearing  no  interest,  redeemable  at  no  fixed  period  ;  receivable  for  debts 


682  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

due  the  government,  but  not  otherwise  to  be  paid,  until,  at  some  inde- 
finite time,  there  should  be  in  the  treasury  a  surplus  beyond  what  the 
secretary  might  think  its  wants  required.  It  was  plain,  authentic,  sta- 
tutable paper  money  :  a  new  emission  of  old  continental.  If  this  was  not 
paper  money,  what  was  it  ?  And  who  expected  this  ?  Who  expected 
that,  in  the  fifth  year  of  the  experiment  for  reforming  the  currency, 
and  bringing  it  to  an  absolute  gold  and  silver  circulation,  the  treasury 
department  would  be  found  recommending  to  us  a  regular  emission  of 

PAPER.  MONEY  ? 

Mr.  Wright  defended  the  bill  as  a  proper  measure  for  providing  for 
the  payment  of  the  public  creditors.  The  law  requiring  the  transfer  of 
the  surplus  moneys  from  the  treasury  to  the  states,  provided  for  its  safe- 
keeping, and  that  only.  The  time  had  arrived  when  the  United  States 
had  no  money  to  keep,  and  not  enough  for  the  necessary  public  expendi- 
tures. The  amount  in  the  treasury  was  only  about  $8,000,000,  subject 
to  draft,  and  that  would  be  so  reduced  by  payments  in  September,  that 
not  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  fourth  instalment  could  be  paid.  The 
question  therefore  was,  whether  the  government  should  borrow  money  to 
be  transferred  to  the  states  for  safe-keeping.  He  was  sensible  that  incon- 
venience would  result  from  withholding  the  instalment.  In  his  own 
state  the  matter  had  been  so  arranged,  that  if  it  was  not  received,  it 
must  be  paid  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  state.  This  made  his  situation 
delicate ;  but  he  regarded  his  duty  as  paramount. 

The  senator  from  Massachusetts,  Mr.  W.  said,  had  remarked  with 
some  asperity  and  surprise  on  the  recommendation  of  the  secretary  for 
issuing  notes  not  bearing  interest.  The  committee,  differing  from  the 
secretary,  had  provided  for  allowing  interest  till  there  should  be  means 
to  redeem  the  notes.  The  senator  erred,  however,  in  regarding  this  as  a 
new  currency  under  the  constitution.  Congress,  in  1815,  had  author- 
ized the  issuing  of  treasury  notes:  those  for  less  than  $100  payable  to 
bearer,  without  interest;  but  for  $100  or  more,  payable  to  order, 
bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  5  2-3  per  cent.,  or  otherwise  to  the 
bearer  without  interest.  The  senator  considered  the  president  inconsis- 
tent in  saying  that  he  refrained  from  suggesting  any  specific  plan  for 
regulating  the  currency  and  exchanges,  because  he  thought  congress  had 
no  power  to  act  for  such  a  purpose ;  and  yet  he  had  recommended  a 
bankrupt  law  against  corporations  and  other  bankers.  But  the  consti- 
tution did  expressly  authorize  the  passage  of  a  general  bankrupt  law. 
He  was  therefore  guilty  of  no  inconsistency. 

Mr.  Webster  said,  if  the  act  of  1815  authorized  the  issuing  of  treasury 
notes,  no  circulation  was  ever  made  of  them  as  the  secretary  now  recom- 
mended.    All  treasury  notes  went  on  the  ground  of  a  temporary  loan  to 


SUB-TREASURY.  683 

the  government,  to  be  paid  or  funded  as  soon  as  the  treasury  would 
allow.  During  the  late  war,  there  was  a  great  want  of  money,  and  a 
great  disposition  to  use  treasury  notes  in  the  payment  of  public  creditors. 
But  at  such  times  things  were  done  which  we  should  be  slow  to  do  in  a 
day  of  peace. 

Mr.  Buchanan  contended  that  congress  had,  in  the  act  of  1815,  done 
the  very  thing  which  Webster  had  said  had  not  been  done  since  the  days 
of  the  confederation.  He  rejoiced,  however,  that  the  committee  of 
finance  had  proposed  the  issue  of  no  notes  not  bearing  interest.  He  was 
in  favor  of  this  bill.  He  had  voted  for  the  deposit  act  of  June,  1836, 
only  as  a  choice  of  evils.  On  the  one  side,  nearly  forty  millions, 
(besides  the  five  millions  to  be  reserved,)  had  accumulated  in  the  deposit 
banks.  By  the  use  of  this  money,  they  were  increasing  the  dividends  of 
their  stockholders,  expanding  extravagantly  the  paper  circulation,  and 
exciting  speculation  to  the  greatest  excess.  On  the  other  hand,  he  had 
strong  objections  to  making  the  federal  government  an  instrument  for 
collecting  money  that  it  might  be  deposited  with  the  states.  But  the 
money  being  on  hand,  and  having  been  collected  under  existing  laws,  he 
thought  it  more  just,  more  politic,  more  safe,  to  place  it  in  deposit  with 
the  states  to  be  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  than  to  suff'er  it  to 
remain  in  the  banks  for  the  benefit  of  their  stockholders,  and  to  the 
injury  of  the  country. 

But  the  deposit  law  made  no  gift  or  loan  to  the  states.  It  merely 
transferred  the  deposits  from  the  banks  to  the  states.  The  faith  of  the 
states  was  pledged  for  the  safe-keeping  of  the  money,  and  for  its  repay- 
ment whenever  required  by  the  secretary  for  defraying  the  expenses  of 
the  government.  Such  want  has  now  occurred ;  and  it  would  be  in  the 
line  of  his  duty  to  call  on  the  states  for  a  portion  of  the  instalments 
already  paid.  But  he  had  acted  wisely  in  not  making  the  demand  until 
the  pleasure  of  congress  could  be  known.  The  states  were  not  now  in  a 
condition  to  return  immediately  any  portion  of  what  they  had  already 
received.  On  the  face  of  the  act  nothing  but  deposit  was  written ;  and 
if  the  states  expected  it  as  a  loan  or  gift,  it  was  not  from  their  solemn 
contract  with  the  United  States  under  this  law. 

But  for  the  unfortunate  amendment  made  to  the  deposit  bill  by  the 
house  of  representatives,  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  senate,  congress,  Mr. 
B.  said,  would  not  have  been  involved  in  its  present  difficulties  ;  and  the 
fourth  instalment  might  be  deposited  with  the  states.  The  secretary 
would  have  received  from  them  transferable  certificates  of  deposit,  in 
convenient  sums,  bearing  no  interest  until  it  became  necessary  for  him 
to  use  them,  but  afterwards  bearing  an  interest  of  five  per  cent.,  and 
redeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  states.     Such  certificates  would  noW 


684  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

command  a  jiremium  in  the  market,  and  be  equal  to  gold  and  silver ;  and 
the  treasury  might  have  been  replenished  by  their  sale. 

Mr.  Calhoun  said  he  was  in  favor  of  the  postponement.  The  object 
of  the  deposit  law  was  to  draw  the  revenue  out  of  the  grasp  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  to  restore  it  to  those  to  whom  it  ought  to  be  restored. 
And  now  when  there  was  no  surplus,  it  was  not  contrary  to  the  purpose 
of  that  law  to  withhold  it.  But  the  responsibility  would  rest  on  gentle- 
men of  the  administration  and  those  of  the  opposition  who  made  last 
year  the  extravagant  appropriations  of  $32,000,000,  exceeding  the  esti- 
mate of  the  secretar}^  of  the  treasury.  The  government  was  now  bank- 
rupt. Another  era  had  arisen.  They  had  got  through  with  the  surplus, 
and,  he  trusted,  they  were  through  with  extravagant  appropriations.  If 
they  did  not  economize  and  retrench,  he  saw  a  new  age  commencmg, 
perhaps  that  of  treasury  notes,  when  the  compromise  act  would  be 
annulled,  the  high  tariff  revived.  But  he  would  agree  that  the  fourth 
deposit  should  be  withheld,  since  the  law  had  fulfilled  its  main  purpose, 
and  since  a  new  series  of  extravagances  was  now  to  arise,  unless  they 
kept  a  good  lookout. 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Buchanan  was  then  adopted,  and  the  bill 
passed  as  before  stated. 

The  bill  authorizing  the  issue  of  treasury  notes  was  next  taken  up. 

Mr.  Wright  moved  to  fill  up  the  first  blank  in  the  bill  with  the  word 
"  ten,"  making  the  amount  to  be  issued  ten  millions ;  which,  he  said, 
would,  as  he  had  learned  from  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  be  about 
the  amount  required. 

Mr.  Clay  inquired  if  the  money  in  the  banks  was  to  be  used  as  bank 
notes  ;  or  if  the  banks  were  to  be  compelled  to  pay  them  in  specie,  and 
then  if  these  funds  were  to  be  left  idle. 

Mr.  Wright  said  they  would  not  be  used  as  bank  notes,  unless  the  law 
should  authorize  them  to  be  so  used. 

Mr.  Clay  said :  "  Then  it  comes  to  this :  we  have  passed  a  bill  to 
take  funds  out  of  the  hands  of  those  who  would  have  been  glad  to  use 
them,  to  put  them  into  the  hands  of  those  who  refuse  to  acknowledge 
and  make  use  of  them.  The  states  would  have  been  glad  to  receive 
this  money  in  the  shape  of  bank  notes,  and  we  have  taken  it  from  them. 
Again  :  government  refuses  to  call  them  funds  in  that  shape,  and  to 
government  we  have  now  made  them  over  by  the  bill  just  passed  ! 
And  as  government,  though  it  receives  those  funds,  and  prevents  their 
being  paid  to  the  states,  will  not  acknowledge  them  as  funds,  there  is 
a  deficiency  existing;  and  this  deficiency  is  to  be  supplied  by  issuing 
treasury  notes,  in  order  that  government  may  be  able  to  get  along.  That 
is  to  say,  government  will  not  receive  the  paper  of  the  country,  and  is 


OTHER    FINANCIAL    MEASURES.  685 

about  to  create  a  paper  of  its  own,  which  the  country  is  expected  to 
receive  !  And  thus,  all  the  promises  which  have  been  made  to  us  of  the 
flowing  of  gold  and  silver  all  over  the  country,  these  promises  of  a  bet- 
ter currency  result  in  the  issue  of  ten  million's  of  paper  money !" 

Mr.  Calhoun  addressed  the  senate  at  length.  Though  he  was  in  favor 
of  the  bill,  he  made  little  or  no  direct  reference  to  it.  His  speech  was 
mainly  directed  against  the  connection  between  the  government  and 
banks.  Having  supported  the  bank  of  1816,  and  proposed  its  rccharter 
for  a  short  period  in  1834,  he  gave  his  reasons  for  his  course  on  those 
occasions,  and  for  his  present  opposition  to  a  reiinion  with  the  banks. 
He  declared  in  1816,  that,  as  a  new  question,  he  would  oppose  the  bank; 
and  that  he  yielded  to  the  necessity  of  the  case,  growing  out  of  the  long 
established  connection  between  the  government  and  the  banking  system. 
So  long  as  the  government  received  and  paid  away  bank  notes  as  money, 
it  was  bound  to  regulate  their  value,  and  had  no  alternative  but  the 
establishment  of  a  national  bank.  In  1834,  his  object,  as  expressly 
avowed,  in  renewing  it  for  a  short  period,  was  to  use  the  bank  to  break 
the  connection  gradually^  in  order  to  avert  the  catastrophe  which  had 
now  happened,  and  which  he  then  clearly  perceived.  But  the  connec- 
tion had  been  broken  by  operation  of  law;  the  question  now  was  an  open 
one;  and  he  was  for  the  first  time  free  to  choose  his  course. 

Mr.  C.  gave  several  reasons  for  a  separation  between  the  government 
and  all  banks  ;  in  the  course  of  which  he  mentioned  the  tariffs  of  1824 
and  1828,  as  among  the  causes  which  had  led  to  the  existing  state  of 
things.  The  high  duties  had  filled  the  treasury  with  surpluses  which 
became  the  source  of  extravagant  expenditures.  The  banks  had  to  dis- 
count and  issue  freely  to  enable  the  merchants  to  pay  their  duty  bonds, 
as  well  as  to  meet  the  vastly  increased  expenditures  of  the  government. 
The  act  of  1828  contributed  still  farther  to  the  expansion,  by  turning 
the  exchange  with  England  in  favor  of  this  country.  In  consequence 
of  the  high  duties,  many  articles  formerly  received  in  exchange  for  our 
exports,  were  excluded,  and  their  value  came  back  to  us  in  gold  and 
silver,  to  purchase  similar  articles  at  the  north.  This  first  gave  that 
western  direction  to  the  precious  metals,  the  revulsive  return  of  which 
had  been  followed  by  so  many  disasters. 

His  reasons  against  a  reunion  with  banks  were  these  :^(1,)  The  con- 
nection had  a  pernicious  influence  over  the  bank  currency.  It  led  to  the 
expansion  and  contraction  which  experience  had  shown  to  be  incident  to 
bank  notes  as  a  currency ;  and  it  tended  to  disturb  the  stability  and  uni- 
formity of  value  which  were  essential  to  a  sound  currency.  (2.)  This 
connection  gave  a  preference  of  one  portion  of  citizens  over  another, 
which  was  neither  fair,  equal,  or  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  our  insti- 


686  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tutions  The  receiving  and  paying  away  their  notes  as  cash,  and  the 
use  of  the  public  money,  was  a  source  of  immense  profit  to  the  banks* 
(3.)  We  bad  reached  a  new  era  with  regard  to  these  institutions.  The 
year  1833  marked  the  commencement  of  this  era.  That  extraordinary 
man  who  had  the  power  of  imprinting  his  own  feelings  on  the  commu- 
nit}^,  then  commenced  his  hostile  attacks,  the  effects  of  which  would  not 
terminate  until  there  should  be  a  separation  between  the  government  and 
the  banks. 

But  more  must  be  done,  said  Mr.  C,  than  reorganizing  the  treasury. 
Under  the  resolution  of  1816,  bank  notes  would  again  be  received  if  the 
banks  should  resume  specie  payments.  The  legal,  as  well  as  the  actual 
connection,  must  be  severed.  To  effect  this  without  a  shock,  he  pro- 
posed to  do  it  gradually.  lie  would,  therefore,  at  the  proper  time,  offer 
an  amendment  to  the  bill,  to  modify  the  resolution  of  1816,  providing 
that,  after  the  1st  of  January,  1838,  three-fourths  of  all  government 
dues  might  be  received  in  the  notes  of  specie-paying  banks ;  after  the 
1st  of  January,  1839,  one-half;  after  the  1st  of  January,  1840,  one- 
fourth  ;  and  after  the  1st  of  January,  1841,  nothing  but  specie,  and  such 
bills,  notes,  or  other  paper  issued  by  authority  of  the  government. 

He  was  also  for  adopting  some  remedial  measure  to  ease  off  the  pres- 
sure while  the  process  was  going  through.  The  government  should  make 
as  little  demand  as  possible  on  the  specie  market,  so  as  to  throw  no 
impediment  in  the  way  of  the  resumption  of  specie  payments.  In  order 
to  thiS;  the  treasury  needed  a  paper  to  perform  the  functions  of  a  paper 
circulation.  This  want  would  be  supplied  by  the  treasury  notes,  which 
ought  therefore  to  bear  no  interest. 

Mr.  C.  said  we  had  arrived  at  a  remarkable  era  in  our  political  history. 
The  days  of  legislative  and  executive  encroachments,  of  tariffs  and  sur- 
pluses, of  bank  and  public  debt,  and  extravagant  expenditure,  were  paBt 
for  the  present ;  and  he  would  seize  the  opportunity  thoroughly  to  re- 
form the  government,  moving  off  under  the  state  rights  banner  in  the 
direction  in  which  he  had  so  long  moved.  He  passed  an  eloquent  eulo- 
gium  upon  his  favorite  theory  of  state  sovereignty,  concluding  thus  : 

"  I  look,  sir,  with  pride  to  the  wise  and  noble  bearing  of  the  little 
state  rights  party,  of  which  it  is  my  pride  to  be  a  member,  throughout 
the  eventful  period  through  which  the  country  has  passed  since  1824. 
Experience  already  bears  testimony  to  their  patriotism,  firmness,  and 
sagacity,  and  history  will  do  it  justice.  In  that  year,  as  I  have  stated, 
the  tariff  system  triumphed  in  the  councils  of  the  nation.  We  saw  its 
disastrous  political  bearings — foresaw  its  surpluses  and  the  extravagances 
to  which  it  would  lead — we  rallied  on  the  election  of  the  late  president 
to  arrest  it  through  the  influence  of  the  executive  department  of  the 


OTHER    FINANCIAL    MEASURES.  687 

government.  In  this  we  failed.  We  then  fell  back  upon  the  rights  and 
sovereignty  of  the  states,  and  by  the  action  of  a  small  but  gallant  state, 
and  through  the  potency  of  its  interposition,  we  brought  the  system  to 
the  ground,  sustained  as  it  was  by  the  opposition  and  the  administration, 
and  by  the  whole  power  and  patronage  of  the  government.  The  per- 
nicious overflow  of  the  treasury,  of  which  it  was  the  parent,  could  not 
be  arrested  at  once.  The  surplus  was  seized  on  by  the  executive,  and  by 
its  control  over  the  banks,  became  the  fruitful  source  of  executive  in- 
fluence and  encroachment.  Without  hesitation,  we  joined  our  old  oppo- 
nents on  the  tariff  question,  but  under  our  own  flag,  and  without  merging 
in  their  ranks,  and  made  a  gallant  and  successful  war  against  the  en- 
croachments of  the  executive.  That  terminated,  we  part  with  our  allies 
in  peace,  and  move  forward,  lag  or  onward  who  may,  to  secure  the  fruits 
of  our  long  but  successful  struggle,  under  the  old  republican  flag  of  '98, 
which,  though  tattered  and  torn,  has  never  yet  been  lowered,  and,  with 
the  blessing  of  God,  never  shall  be  with  my  consent." 

The  bill  authorizing  the  issue  of  treasury  notes ;  the  bill  for  adjusting 
the  remaining  claims  on  the  late  deposit  banks  ;  and  the  bill  to  extend 
the  time  of  payment  on  merchants'  revenue  bonds,  all  passed  the  senate, 
on  the  19th  of  September.  By  the  last  of  these  bills,  the  time  of  pay- 
ment of  the  obligations  given  by  merchants  for  the  payment  of  duties  on 
goods  imported,  was  extended  nine  months. 

The  bill  known  as  the  sub-treasury  bill,  reported  by  Mr.  Wright  on 
the  14th,  was  taken  up  in  the  senate  on  the  19th,  when  Mr.  Calhoun 
offered  the  amendment  of  which  he  gave  notice  at  the  time  of  his  speech 
on  the  bill  to  authorize  the  issue  of  treasury  notes ;  viz.,  requiring  the 
eventual  payment  in  specie  of  all  moneys  due  to  the  government, 
familiarly  called,  "  the  specie  clause."  This  amendment  was  debated  by 
Messrs.  Niles,  Benton,  Walker,  Calhoun,  and  Buchanan,  in  support  of 
it ;  and  Messrs.  Tallmadge,  Clay,  Webster,  King,  of  Georgia,  and  Pres- 
ton, in  opposition.  The  amendment  was  adopted,  on  the  2d  of  October : 
yeas,  24  ;  nays,  23. 

Mr.  Tallmadge,  hitherto  a  firm  supporter  of  the  administration,  sepa- 
rated from  his  friends  on  this  question.  lie  deprecated  this  warfare 
against  the  whole  credit  system  of  the  country.  The  whole  body  of  the 
state  banks  did  not  merit  the  war  now  declared  against  them  :  the  state 
bank  deposit  system  had  not  failed  ;  and  in  proof  of  the  fact,  he  referred 
to  the  assurances  of  the  late  president  and  the  present  incumbent,  and 
to  the  reiterated  declarations  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury.  He  main- 
tained that  the  present  crisis  was  only  an  exception  to  a  general  rule ; 
and  that,  if  the  government  itself  had  not  entered  into  measures  des- 
tructive of  public  confidence,  this  crisis  would  not  have  occurred.     It 


688  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

was  aided  also  by  the  manner  in  whicli  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  had 
carried  the  deposit  law  into  execution — making  transfers  of  specie  be- 
tween distant  places  so  as  to  create  a  disturbance  in  business  affairs,  and 
to  lead  to  a  crippling  of  the  banks.  The  sub-treasury  system,  if  adopt- 
ed, would  ruin  the  country.  He  mentioned  a  long  list  of  evils  which  it 
would  produce,  and  said  it  could  not  be  carried  into  effect  in  New  York. 

Mr.  King,  of  Georgia,  also  formerly  a  supporter  of  Gen.  Jackson, 
spoke  at  great  length  against  the  measure.  As  he  did  not  like  either  the 
sub-treasury  or  the  state  bank  system,  but  wished  time  to  digest  a  better, 
he  moved  the  postponement  of  the  whole  subject  to  the  first  Monday  in 
December  next. 

There  were  other  members  of  both  houses  who,  like  Messrs.  Tallmadge 
and  King,  had  separated  from  their  friends  of  the  administration  party 
on  financial  questions,  and  united  with  the  whigs,  and  who  were  called 
"  conservatives."  In  the  house,  the  number  who  dissented  from  the 
views  of  the  majority  on  these  questions,  especially  the  sub- treasury 
scheme,  was  sufficient  to  defeat  it.  It  was  laid  on  the  table,  on  the  14th 
of  October,  120  to  107.  Thus  we  see  the  whigs,  who  zealously  opposed 
the  removal  of  the  deposits  to  the  state  banks,  now  unitedly  opposing 
their  removal  from  these  same  banks ;  as  between  them  and  the  gov- 
ernment officers,  they  preferred  the  former  as  depositories  for  the  public 
moneys.  And  we  see  the  administration  members,  with  a  few  exceptions, 
adopting,  as  their  favorite  financial  panacea,  a  measure  which  they  had 
but  recently  regarded  with  the  greatest  disfavor. 

The  several  bills  just  mentioned  as  having  passed  the  senate,  together 
with  that  for  postponing  until  January  1,  1839,  the  deposit  of  the  fourth 
instalment  of  the  surplus  revenue,  and  a  few  other  acts  having  been 
passed,  congress  adjourned,  (October  16,)  to  the  1st  Monday  of  Decem- 
ber ;  leaving  the  project  of  the  independent  treasury  to  be  reattempted 
at  a  more  auspicious  season. 

A  large  number  of  petitions  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  and  remonstrances  against  the  annexation  of  Texas,  were 
received  at  the  extra  session.  A  resolution  was  proposed  to  be  offered 
by  Mr.  Adams,  "  That  the  power  of  annexing  the  people  of  any  inde- 
pendent foreign  state  to  this  union,  is  a  power  not  delegated  by  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  to  their  congress,  or  to  any  department  of 
their  government,  but  reserved  to  the  people."  But  the  motion  being 
decided  out  of  order,  the  resolution  was  not  received  or  read. 

A  resolution  was  also  offered  by  Mr.  "Wise,  proposing-  an  inquiry  into 
the  extraordinary  delays  and  failures,  and  enormous  expenditures  which 
had  attended  the  prosecution  of  the  Seminole  war  in  Florida.  The 
question  was  not  brought  to  a  decision  before  the  close  of  the  session. 


INDEPENDENT    TREASUK.Y AGAIN    DEFEATED.  689 


CHAPTER  LVI. 

INDEPENDENT    TREASURY AGAIN    DEFEATED. TALLMADGe's  SPEECH. IN- 
CIDENTAL   DEBATE    BETWEEN    CLAY,    CALHOUN    AND    WEBSTER. SPECIE 

CIRCULAR    REPEALED. 

The  2d  session,  being  the  first  regular  session  of  the  25  th  congress, 
began  the  4th  of  December,  1837.  The  establishment  of  the  indepen- 
dent treasury  was  again  recommended  by  the  president ;  and  on  the  16th 
of  January,  a  bill  for  that  purpose  was  reported  to  the  senate  by  Mr. 
Wright.  This  bill  proposed  the  gradual  collection  of  all  revenues  in 
specie,  requiring  on  and  after  the  1st  of  January,  1839,  the  payment  of 
one-sixth  part  in  coin,  and  an  additional  one-sixth  annually  thereafter, 
until  the  1st  of  January,  1844,  when  the  whole  would  become  thus  pay- 
able. The  bill  was  discussed  with  great  ability  at  this  session ;  being 
supported  mainly  by  Messrs.  Wright,  Benton,  and  others,  and  opposed  by 
Messrs.  Clay,  Webster,  Eives  and  White.  On  the  2d  of  February,  Mr. 
Rives  offered  a  substitute,  containing  a  provision  similar  to  the  one  pro- 
posed at  the  preceding  annual  session,  requiring  the  payment  of  the 
revenues  in  coin  and  the  notes  of  specie  paying  banks  issuing  bills  of  the 
larger  denominations  only. 

This  scheme  of  finance  did  not  appear  to  have  increased  in  the  public 
favor  since  the  extra  session.  On  the  6th  of  February,  Mr.  Gxundy 
presented  resolutions  of  the  legislature  of  Tennessee,  by  one  of  which 
the  senators  of  that  state  were  instructed  to  vote  against  the  measure  pro- 
posed by  the  president ;  and  believing  in  the  right  of  instruction  by  the 
legislature,  he  should  comply.  Mr.  Buchanan  also  presented  resolutions  of 
the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  instructing  the  senators  and  requesting  the 
representatives  from  that  state,  to  vote  for  the  postponement  of  the  bill 
to  the  next  session.  Accompanying  the  resolution  of  instructions,  were 
numerous  reasons  of  the  senate  for  concurring  in  the  same.  Mr.  B.  also 
declared  his  intention  to  comply  with  the  instructions.  Mr.  Wall,  of 
New  Jersey,  having  been  instructed  to  vote  against  the  bill,  declared  his 
disregard  of  the  instructions  of  the  legislature  of  his  state. 

The  bill,  before  it  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed,  was  amended  by 
striking  out  what  was  deemed  its  most  obnoxious  section — "  the  specie 
clause,"  which  required  all  revenues  to  be  ultimately  paid  in  gold  and 
silver.  An  amendment  moved  by  Mr.  Webster,  was  adopted,  prohibit- 
ing the  secretary  of  the  treasury  from  issuing  any  general  order  (as  the 
specie  circular)  making  any  discrimination  as  to  the  funds  or  medium 
in  which  debts  to  the  United  States  shoidd  be  paid  :  ayes,  37 ;  noes,  14. 
44 


690  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  vote  on  the  final  passage  of  the  bill  in  the  senate,  was  taken  the 
26th  of  March  :  ayes,  27 ;  noes,  25.  Mr.  Grundy  and  Mr.  Buchanan, 
friends  of  the  bill,  voted  in  the  negative,  in  obedience  to  instructions. 
The  vote  on  its  passage  in  the  same  body  at  the  extra  session,  was  26  to 
20.  In  the  house,  the  bill  of  the  senate  was  reported  the  27th,  and  laid 
on  the  table,  106  to  98. 

The  speeches  in  the  senate  on,  and  incidental  to  the  sub-treasury  bill, 
were  among  the  ablest  efforts  of  these  distinguished  gentlemen  ;  and  not 
a  little  interest  was  given  to  the  debate  by  charges  of  political  inconsis- 
.  tency  and  eiForts  at  self-vindication. 

Mr.  Hubbard,  of  New  Hampshire,  had,  in  his  speech,  read  approv- 
ingly from  that  part  of  the  president's  message  which  ascribed  the  unex- 
pected results  of  the  late  elections  to  bank  influence  ;  and  had  undertaken 
to  explain  the  result  in  New  York.  Mr.  Tallmadge,  who  had  separated 
from  his  democratic  friends,  and  was  now  one  of  those  called  "  conserva- 
tives," in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Hubbard,  vindicated  the  people  against  the 
charge  of  the  president,  and  ascribed  the  result  to  the  principles  adopted 
by  the  president  and  his  party,  from  the  creed  of  a  faction  (called  "  loco- 
foco")  which  had  its  origin  in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  1829.  This 
faction,  he  said,  was  turned  out  of  Tammany  Hall  in  the  pure  days  of 
the  democratic  republican  party,  and  held  meetings  in  the  open  air 
whenever  it  was  necessary  to  take  measures  to  reduce  the  price  of  fiour^ 
or  to  carry  out  any  other  great  principle  in  political  economy !  After 
their  principles  had  received  the  countenance  of  the  administration,  they 
returned  to  the  wigwam^  displaced  the  ancient  sachems,  and  there  they 
now  illustrate  their  ideas  of  freedom  of  speech  and  free  discussion, 
by  forcible  interruption  of  the  assemblages  of  orderly  citizens,  who  hap- 
pen to  entertain  opinions  on  matters  of  public  policy  contrary  to  their 
own.  They  are  now  the  leaders  of  the  party ^  and  the  prominent  candi- 
dates for  executive  favor.     [Appendix,  Note  J.] 

The  leading  feature  of  their  creed,  Mr.  T.  said,  was  the  destruction 

OF     the    whole     banking     system     of     the    country THE    REPEAL    OF 

charters  and  the  abrogation  of  vested  rights.  And  this  was 
understood  by  the  people  to  be  the  policy  of  the  administration.  En- 
couraged by  their  successful  war  on  the  bank  of  the  United  States,  they 
had  commenced  a  ruthless  warfare  against  the  state  banks ;  not  thinking 
that  they  might  not  be  able  to  bring  the  same  force  into  the  field  in  the 
one  case  as  in  the  other.  They  seemed  to  have  forgotten  that  they  had 
during  the  first  war,  persuaded  the  people  that  there  were  monstrous 
evils  connected  with  the  one  bank,  and  equal  benefits  to  be  derived  from 
the  others ;  that  they  had  assured  the  people,  that  the  state  institutions 
could  perform  for  the  government  all  that  had  been  done  by  the  national 
hank,  and  could  give  even  a  *'  tetter  currency." 


tallmadge's  speech.  691 

One  evidence  of  the  meditated  destruction  of  the  state  banks  by  the 
administration,  was,  that  the  proceedings  of  the  meetings  of  the  loco- 
focos  in  the  great  cities,  where  resolutions  were  adopted  against  the 
whole  banking  system,  and  in  favor  of  an  exclusive  metallic  currency, 
had  been  responded  to  by  men  in  high  official  stations,  and  their  res- 
ponses were  perfectly  satisfactory.  With  this  high  sanction,  these  wild 
doctrines  began  to  spread.  Many  changed  their  opinions ;  others  adopted 
this  radical  creed,  because  it  was  approved  by  those  who  held  the  reins 
of  party,  and  had  the  power  of  party  dispensation.  Another  evidence 
of  the  prevalence  of  this  radical  spirit  was  seen  in  the  treatment  of  the 
subject  of  suspension  of  specie  payments.  By  the  law  of  New  York, 
(the  old  safety-fund  law,)  when  a  bank  did  not  for  ten  days  redeem  its 
notes  in  specie,  the  chancellor  was  directed  to  issue  his  injunction,  close 
its  doors,  appoint  a  receiver  to  collect  its  dues  and  pay  its  debts.  There 
was  then  due  the  banks  from  the  people  about  $70,000,000.  The  col- 
lection of  this  amount  would  have  produced  general  distress  and  ruin. 
The  legislature  being  in  session,  a  law  was  forthwith  passed,  almost 
unanimously,  to  suspend  for  a  year  the  forfeiture  of  the  charters  which 
had  been  incurred  by  their  failing  to  redeem.  This  act  had  been  openly 
denounced  by  public  meetings  in  the  city  of  New  York,  composed  of 
persons  claiming  to  be  the  exclusive  friends  of  the  administration.  And 
this  denunciation  had  been  reiterated  by  the  official  organ  of  the  govern- 
ment here. 

And  why  was  the  act  denounced?  Because,  without  it,  the  banks 
would  have  all  been  prostrated,  and  we  should  have  been  at  once  brought 
to  the  *'  golden  age  "  which  had  been  so  long  desired.  The  great  inter- 
e'sts  of  the  country  would  have  been  sacrificed  ;  but  what  of  that  ?  We 
should  have  had  the  "constitutional  currency" — "a  hard  money  gov- 
ernment " — "  a  successful  experiment !"  The  suspension  act  was  not  a 
boon  to  the  banks ;  it  was  a  favor  to  the  people,  while  it  saved  the  bank 
charters  from  forfeiture.  Other  states  passed  similar  laws;  and  thus 
were  frustrated  the  designs  of  those  who  deemed  the  suspension  of 
specie  payments  the  proper  occasion  to  carry  out  their  favorite  plan  of 
breaking  down  the  whole  banking  system  of  the  states.  He  did  not  say 
that  the  president  entertained  this  design.  But  the  people  judged  him 
by  his  measures.  He  convened  congress  for  an  extra  session.  The 
message  was  delivered ;  and  the  people  believed  that  the  administration 
intended  to  destroy  the  banks.  This  belief  had  been  confirmed  by  the 
result. 

Farther :  The  banks  having  been  saved  by  legislative  enactments,  the 
president  recommended  "  a  uniform  law  concerning  bankruptcies  of  cor- 
porations, and  other  bankers,"  as  a  measure  "  fully  authorized  by  the 


692  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

constitution."  What  would  have  been  the  effect  of  such  a  law  ?  Every 
bank  in  the  union  would  have  been  handed  over  to  commissioners,  and 
its  concerns  closed  up ;  for  all  had  suspended,  and  would  of  course  have 
come  within  its  provisions :  and  the  effect  would  have  been  ruin  from 
one  extremity  of  the  union  to  the  other.  Fortunately,  congress  did  not 
adopt  the  recommendation,  although  it  was  urged  with  great  power  by 
one  of  the  most  prominent  friends  of  the  administration,  (Mr.  Benton.) 
This  subject  was  not  new  to  the  president.  In  1826,  standing  on  that 
floor,  he  maintained  on  this  subject  the  same  principles  which  he  (Mr. 
T.)  was  now  endeavoring  to  maintain.  On  the  discussion  of  the  bank- 
rupt bill,  then  before  the  senate,  Mr.  Yan  Buren,  as  senator,  opposed 
its  application  to  banking  incorporations,  "as  an  odious  exercise  of 
power  not  granted  by  the  constitution."  But  in  1837,  as  president,  he 
proposes  "  a  uniform  law  concerning  bankruptcies  of  corporations  and 
other  bankers,"  as  a  measure  "  fully  authorized  by  the  constitution." 

The  people  foresaw  what  would  have  been  the  effect  of  the  proposed 
bankrupt  law;  and  they  saw  the  effect  of  the  sub-treasury  scheme. 
They  knew  both  to  be  equally  fatal.  They  saw,  by  the  official  organ, 
after  it  was  defeated  in  the  house,  at  the  extra  session,  that  it  was  to  be 
again  forced  upon  congress.  Its  adoption  would  have  prevented  the 
resumption  of  specie  payments ;  or,  if  the  banks  should  resume,  it 
would  compel  them  to  stop  again. 

But  there  was  another  cause  of  the  results  of  the  late  election.  The 
people  saw  the  treatment  received  by  those  who  opposed  these  measures. 
They  saw  some  of  their  representatives  here,  pursuing  the  straight- 
forward track  of  principle,  refusing  to  turn  about  at  the  word  of  com- 
mand, and  opposing  the  measure  which  the  whole  party,  with  Gen.  Jack- 
son at  their  head,  opposed  in  1834,  and  which  the  official  organ  then 
pronounced  "disorganizing  and  revolutionary."  They  saw  all  thisj 
and  they  saw  also  that  for  this  adherence  to  principle,  their  represent- 
atives were  denounced  and  proscribed  by  this  same  official  organ  of  the 
administration  !  They  saw  established  at  the  seat  of  government,  by 
the  discipline  of  party,  a  despotism,  the  most  perfect  on  earth — the 

DESPOTISM   OF    OPINION  ! 

This  system  of  dictation  and  proscription,  Mr.  T.  said,  commenced 
during  Gen.  Jackson's  second  term.  He  would  not  tolerate  a  difference 
of  opinion  on  any  subject  in  which  his  feelings  were  enlisted.  It  might 
have  been  owing  to  the  infirmity  of  age.  Witness  the  distribution  bill, 
the  specie  circular,  and  the  currency  bill.  In  these  measures,  the  great 
body  of  his  friends  in  both  houses  were  opposed  to  him,  still,  the  official 
organ  maintained  the  executive  will,  and  denounced  the  action  and  opin- 
ions of  those  who  constituted  the  legislative  branch  of  the  government. 


tallmadge's  speech.  693 

The  present  executive  had  promised  to  "follow  in  the  footsteps  of  his 
illustrious  predecessor."  This  sub-treasury  scheme  was  the  darling 
project  of  the  late  president;  and  it  was  presumed  that  it  was  now 
brought  forward  in  pursuance  of  this  pledge. 

Mr.  T.  said  his  colleague,  (Mr.  Wright,)  had  spoken  of  that  portion 
of  the  friends  of  the  a(^ministration  who  opposed  this  scheme,  as  a  small 
party,  and  intimated  that  they  ought  to  give  up  their  opinions  to  the 
majority.  That  small  party  were  maintaining  the  principles  which  the 
whole  party  recently  maintained  ;  and  the  difference  between  them  being 
a  matter  of  principle,  it  could  not  be  compromised.  The  opinions  of 
his  colleague  had,  in  all  matters  in  difference,  always  coincided  with  those 
of  the  executive.  And,  had  the  executive  recommended  the  state  bank 
deposit  system,  they  would  have  seen  his  colleague,  with  himself,  (Mr. 
T.,)  and  his  friend  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Rives)  by  his  side,  leading  on 
his  faithful  troops  ;  and  instead  of  the  golden  banner  under  which  he 
was  now  fighting  against  the  institutions  of  the  states,  and  the  rights  of 
the  states,  he  would  raise  aloft  the  stars  and  stripes  of  his  country,  the 
emblem  of  those  rights  ;  and  under  that  sign  he  would  have  conquered. 

Under  the  present  system  of  party  discipline  and  executive  intimida- 
tion, Mr.  T.  said,  the  liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press  had  been  vir- 
tually abrogated.  The  executive  department  had  become  too  powerful 
for  the  legislative  branch.  The  great  apprehension  of  the  framers  of 
the  constitution  was  from  the  legislative  power.  But  the  theory  of  the 
constitution  had,  in  the  short  space  of  half  a  century,  been  reversed. 
The  executive  department  had  become  so  formidable  as  to  overawe  the 
legislature,  and  dictate  to  it  the  measures  which  the  president  himself 
was  to  execute.  Add  to  that  strength  the  powers  of  a  treasury  bank, 
which  were  contained  in  the  bill,  and  there  would  have  been  given  all 
that  could  define  a  despot. 

From  this  sketch  of  the  speech  of  Mr.  Tallmadge  are  seen,  both  the 
principles  of  the  ''conservatives,"  and  the  feelings  which  they  entertained 
towards  the  party  they  had  abandoned.  Though  comparatively  small 
in  numbers,  they  contributed  much  to  the  overthrow  of  that  party  at 
the  succeeding  presidential  election. 

Mr.  Calhoun,  who  had,  since  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  or  during 
most  of  the  period  of  the  "  war  upon  the  currency,"  as  it  was  called, 
cooperated  with  the  opposition,  again  united  with  the  administration, 
and  advocated  the  sub-treasury  project,  as  a  plan  for  separating  the  gov- 
ernment from  all  banks.  In  the  course  of  his  speech,  he  mentioned  the 
fact  that  the  opponents  of  this  scheme,  now  supported  the  state  bank 
system  which  a  few  years  before  they  opposed.  He  said,  however,  that 
ne  made  no  charge  of  inconsistency,  being  aware  that,  as  a  national  bank 


694  THS    AMEPaCAN    STATESMAN. 

was  out  af  the  question,  they  were  compelled  to  choose  hetween  the 
state  bank  plan  and  that  of  the  independent  treasury. 

Mr.  Clay,  in  his  speech  a  few  days  afterwards,  alluded  to  a  late  letter 
of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  a  dinner  committee  in  his  own  state,  in  which  he  had 
given  his  reasons  for  having  joined  the  opposition^  and  reunited  with  the 
administration  party.  State  interposition  (meaning  threatened  nullifi- 
cation) had,  the  letter  said,  overthrown  the  protective  tariff  and  the 
American  system,  and  put  a  stop  to  congressional  usurpation  ;  and,  by 
a  union  with  their  old  opponents,  the  national  republicans,  (or  whigs,) 
they  had  effectually  brought  down  the  power  of  the  executive.  These 
objects  effected,  he  had  found  it  necessary  to  abandon  his  late  allies, 
whose  financial  as  well  as  general  policy,  was  hostile  to  the  interests  of 
the  south  ;  and  "  the  southern  division  of  the  administration  party  must 
reoccupy  the  old  state  rights  ground."  Mr.  Clay  admitted  that  they 
had  denounced  the  pet  bank  system ;  they  did  so  still ;  but  it  did  not 
follow  that  they  must  accept  a  worse  one.  The  senator  had  said  that 
the  present  bill  would  take  the  public  moneys  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
executive,  and  place  them  in  the  hands  of  the  law.  It  did  no  such  thing. 
It  proposed  by  law  to  confirm  them  in  the  custody  of  the  executive,  and 
to  convey  to  him  new  and  enormous  powers  of  control  over  them.  Every 
custodary  of  the  public  funds  would  be  a  creature  of  the  executive,  de- 
pendent upon  his  breath,  and  subject  to  removal  by  the  same  breath, 
whenever  the  executive,  from  caprice,  from  tyranny,  or  from  party 
motives,  should  choose  to  order  it.  What  safety  was  there  for  the 
public  money  in  the  hands  of  a  hundred  such  dependent  subordinates  ? 

Mr.  Clay  remarked  pretty  severely  upon  the  recent  secession  of  Mr. 
Calhoun  from  the  whig  ranks.  He  said :  "  The  arduous  contest  in 
which  we  were  so  long  engaged,  was  about  to  terminate  in  a  glorious 
victory.  The  very  object  for  which  the  alliance  was  formed,  was  about 
to  be  accomplished.  At  this  critical  moment  the  senator  left  us ;  he 
left  us  for  the  very  purpose  of  preventing  the  success  of  the  commoa 
cause.  *  *  *  jje  left  us,  as  he  tells  us  in  the  Edgefield  letter,  be- 
cause the  victory  which  our  common  arms  were  about  to  achieve,  was 
not  to  enure  to  him  and  his  party,  but  exclusively  to  the  benefit  of  his 
allies  and  their  cause.  I  thought  that,  actuated  by  patriotism,  (that 
noblest  of  human  virtues,)  we  had  been  contending  together  for  our 
common  country^  for  her  violated  rights,  her  threatened  liberties,  her 
prostrate  constitution.  Never  did  I  suppose  that  personal  or  party 
considerations  entered  into  our  views.  Whether,  if  victory  shall  ever 
again  be  about  to  perch  upon  the  standard  of  the  spoils  party,  (the  de- 
nomination which  the  senator  has  so  often  given  to  his  present  allies,) 
he  will  not  feel  himself  constrained,  by  the  principles  upon  which  he  has 


DEBATE    BETWEEN    CLAY,    CALHOUN,    AND    WEBSTER.  695 

acted,  to  leave  them  because  it  may  not  enure  to  the  benefit  of  himself 
and  his  party,  I  leave  to  be  adjusted  between  themselves." 

Mr.  Calhoun,  in  reply,  said,  the  leading  charge  of  the  senator  was, 
that  he  had  gone  over  to  the  other  party.  If,  by  this  vague  expression, 
he  meant  to  imply  that  he  had  either  changed  his  opinion,  abandoned 
his  principles,  or  deserted  his  party,  he  repelled  the  charge.  [The 
secretary  of  the  senate,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  C,  read  extracts  from  his 
speech  on  the  removal  of  the  deposits  in  1834,  showing  his  position  at 
that  time,  as  follows  :]  "  If  this  was  a  question  of  bank  or  no  bank ;  if 
it  involved  the  existence  of  the  banking  system,  it  would  indeed  be  a 
great  question — one  of  the  first  magnitude ;  and  with  my  present  im- 
pression, long  entertained,  and  daily  increasing,  I  would  hesitate,  long 
hesitate,  before  I  would  be  found  under  the  banner  of  the  system.  I 
have  great  doubts,  (if  doubts  they  may  be  called,)  as  to  the  soundness 
and  tendency  of  the  whole  system,  in  all  its  modifications.  *  *  *  * 
What,  then,  is  the  real  question  which  now  agitates  the  country  ?  I 
answer,  it  is  a  struggle  between  the  executive  and  legislative  depart- 
ments of  the  government ;  a  struggle,  not  in  relation  to  the  existence  of 
the  bank,  but  which,  congress  or  the  president,  should  have  power  to 
create  a  bank,  and  the  consequent  control  over  the  currency  of  the 
country.     This  is  the  real  question." 

Mr.  Calhoun  at  that  time  considered  this  league,  or  association  of 
states  banks,  created  by  the  executive,  and  bound  together  by  its  influ- 
ence, as  being,  "  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  bank  of  the  United  States 
an  executive  bank  of  the  United  States,  as  distinguished  from  that  of 
congress  ;"  — and  said  :  "  However  it  might  fail  to  perform  satisfactorily 
the  functions  of  the  bank  of  the  United  States  as  incorporated  by  law, 
it  would  outstrip  it,  far  outstrip  it,  in  all  its  dangerous  qualities,  in  ex- 
tending the  power,  the  influence,  and  the  corruption  of  the  government. 

*  *  *  *  So  long  as  the  question  is  one  between  a  bank  of  the  United 
States  incorporated  by  congress,  and  the  system  of  banks  created  by  the 
will  of  the  executive,  it  is  an  insult  to  the  understanding  to  discourse  on 
the  pernicious  tendency  and  unconstitutionality  of  the  bank  of  the 
United  States.  To  bring  up  that  question  fairly,  you  must  go  one  step 
farther — you  must  divorce  the  government  and  the  banking  system. 
You  must  neither  receive  nor  pay  away  bank  notes  ;  you  must  go  back 
to  the  old  system  of  the  strongbox,  and  of  gold  and  silver.  If  you  have 
a  right  to  treat  bank  notes  as  money,  by  receiving  them  in  your  dues 
and  paying  them  away  to  creditors,  you  have  a  right  to  create  a  bank. 

*  *  *  *  I  repeat,  you  must  divorce  the  government  entirely  from 
the  banking  system,  or,  if  not,  you  are  bound  to  incorporate  a  bank 
as  the  only  safe  and  efficient  means  of  giving  stability  and  uniformity  to 


696  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  currency."  These,  Mr.  C.  said,  were  his  sentiments  delivered  four 
years  since,  on  the  question  of  the  removal  of  the  deposits  ;  and  he  asked 
if  there  was  any  thing  in  them  contradictory  to  his  present  opinions  or 
course. 

Mr.  C.  also  vindicated  the  consistency  of  his  course  in  relation  to  the 
incorporation  of  a  national  bank  in  1834.  The  currency  was  diseased  ; 
the  circulation  was  great,  and  must  still  farther  increase.  He  stood 
almost  alone.  One  party  supported  the  league  of  state  banks;  the 
other  the  United  States  bank,  the  charter  of  which  Mr.  Webster  proposed 
to  renew  for  six  years.  From  his  speech  on  that  question,  the  secretary 
was  requested  to  read  some  extracts,  of  which  the  following  is  a  part : 
"  After  a  full  survey  of  the  whole  subject,  I  see  none,  I  can  conjecture 
no  means  of  extricating  the  country  from  its  present  danger,  and  to 
arrest  its  farther  increase,  but  a  bank ;  the  agency  of  which,  in  some 
form,  or  under  some  authority  is  indispensable.  The  country  has  been 
brought  into  the  present  diseased  state  of  the  currency  by  banks,  and 
must  be  extricated  by  their  agency.  We  must,  in  a  word,  use  a  bank 
to  unhank  the  banks,  to  the  extent  that  may  be  necessary  to  restore  a 
safe  and  stable  currency — ^just  as  we  apply  snow  to  a  frozen  limb  to 
restore  vitality  and  circulation,  or  hold  up  a  burn  to  the  flame  to  extract 
the  inflammation.  All  must  see  that  it  is  impossible  to  suppress  the 
banking  system  at  once.  *  #  *  ^  ^ew  and  a  safe  system  must 
gradually  grow  up  under,  and  replace  the  old." 

Mr.  C.  then  proceeded  to  show  that  Mr.  Clay  had  put  a  forced  and 
wrong  construction  on  his  language  in  the  Edgefield  letter,  in  which  he 
gave  as  a  reason  for  leaving  the  national  republican  party,  "  that  the 
victory  would  enure  not  to  us,  but  exclusively  to  the  benefit  of  our  allies 
and  their  cause."  The  motive  was  stated  in  the  same  paragraph  :  "  The 
first  fruits  of  the  victory  would  have  been  an  overshadowing  national  bank, 
with  an  immense  capital,  not  less  than  from  fifty  to  a  hundred  millions, 
which  would  have  centralized  the  currency  and  exchanges,  and  with  them 
the  commerce  and  capital  of  the  country,  in  whatever  section  the  head 
of  the  institution  might  be  placed."  It  was  manifest  that  the  expres- 
sion upon  which  the  senator  fixed,  alluded,  not  to  power  or  place,  but 
to  principle  and  policy.  Mr.  C.  continued  :  "  But  we  find  the  senator 
very  charitably  leaving  to  time  to  disclose  my  motives  for  going  over  ! 
I,  who  have  changed  no  opinion,  abandoned  no  principle,  deserted  no 
party ;  I,  who  have  stood  still  and  maintained  my  ground  against  every 
difiiculty,  to  be  told  that  it  is  left  to  time  to  disclose  my  motive  !  The 
imputation  sinks  to  the  earth  with  the  groundless  charge  on  which  it 
rests.  I  stamp  it  with  scorn  in  the  dust.  I  pick  up  the  dart  which  fell 
harmless  at  my  feet.     I  hurl  it  back.     What  the  senator  charges  on  me 


DEBATE  BETWEEN  CLAY,  CALHOUN,  AND  WEBSTER.       697 

unjustly,  he  has  actually  done.  He  went  over  on  a  memorable  occasion, 
and  did  not  leave  it  to  time  to  disclose  his  motive." 

Mr.  C.  closed  his  speech  with  a  declaration  of  his  present  political 
position,  and  a  review  of  his  long  public  career,  which  had  then  been 
continuous  for  twenty-six  years. 

Mr.  Clay  immediately  replied.  Having  answered  several  charges  of 
misrepresentation,  he  proceeds:  "  I  am  also  accused  of  misrepresenting 
the  senator  in  respect  to  the  reception  of  redeemable  bank  notes  for  the 
term  of  six  years,  as  provided  for  in  the  bill.  He  thinks  it  entirely 
constitutional  to  make  such  a  limited  arrangement,  whilst  it  would  be 
wholly  inadmissible  to  continue  for  any  indefinite  time  to  receive  such 
notes.  The  complaint  is  that  I  did  not  state  the  circumstances,  condi- 
tions, and  qualifications  under  which  he  proposes  this  temporary  recep- 
tion of  bank  notes.  I  do  not  think  that  they  can  vary,  in  the  smallest 
degree,  the  question  of  power.  If  the  constitution  prohibits  the  recep- 
tion of  bank  notes,  the  prohibition  extends  as  well  to  a  term  of  six  years 
as  to  any  indefinite  time. 

"  He  argued  that  we  are  so  connected  with  banks,  that  we  must  ease 
off  gradually,  and  not  suddenly  discontinue  the  use  of  paper.  The 
senator  commenced  his  speech  at  the  extra  session,  by  announcing  that 
there  was  a  total  rupture  between  the  government  and  the  banks  by  the 
suspension  of  specie  payments.  The  disconnection  still  exists  in  fact 
and  in  law.  The  bill  which  the  senator  so  warmly  espouses  makes  a 
contingent  revival  of  the  connection.  In  1816,  also,  the  connection  had 
altogether  ceased  in  point  of  law.  Then  the  senator  proposed  a  bank 
of  the  United  States.  In  both  cases,  if  I  understand  him,  he  proceeds 
on  the  ground  of  practical  inconvenience.  Now,  sir,  I  cannot  for  my 
life  concur  in  making  the  constitution  this  nose  of  wax.  *  *  *  The 
doctrine  of  the  senator  in  1816  was,  as  he  now  states  it,  that  bank  notes 
being  in  fact  received  by  the  executive,  although  contrary  to  law,  it  was 
constitutional  to  create  a  bank  of  the  United  States.  And  in  1834, 
finding  that  bank  which  was  constitutional  in  its  inception,  but  had 
become  unconstitutional  in  its  progress,  yet  in  its  existence,  it  was  quite 
constitutional  to  propose,  as  the  senator  did,  to  continue  it  twelve  years 
longer  !" 

In  reply  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  remark  that  "  state  interposition "  had 
overthrown  the  protective  tariff,  Mr.  Clay  said  ;  "  State  interposition  ! 
—that  is,  as  I  understand  the  senator,  nullification,  he  asserts,  over- 
threw the  tariff  and  the  American  system.  *  *  *  Nullification, 
Mr.  President,  overthrew  the  protective  policy !  No,  sir.  The  com- 
promise was  not  extorted  by  the  terror  of  nullification.  Among  other 
more  important  motives  that  influenced  its  passage,  it  was  a  compas- 


698  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

sionate  concession  to  the  imprudence  and  impotency  of  nullification  ! 
*  *  *  At  the  commencement  of  the  session  of  1832,  the  senator 
from  South  Carolina  was  in  any  condition  other  than  that  of  dictating 
terms.  Those  of  us  who  were  then  here  must  recollect  well  his  haggard 
.looks  and  his  anxious,  depressed  countenance.  A  highly  estimable 
friend  of  mine,  Mr.  J.  M.  Clayton,  of  Delaware,  alluding  to  the  possi- 
bility of  a  rupture  with  South  Carolina,  and  to  the  declarations  of 
president  Jackson  with  respect  to  certain  distinguished  individuals 
whom  he  had  denounced  and  proscribed,  said  to  me  on  more  than  one 
occasion,  referring  to  the  senator  from  South  Carolina  and  some  of  his 
colleagues  :  '  They  are  clever  fellows,  and  it  will  never  do  to  let  old 
Jackson  hang  them.'  Sir,  this  disclosure  is  extorted  from  me  by  the 
senator." 

Mr.  Webster  also  came  into  collision  with  Mr.  Calhoun.  The  latter 
had  denied  the  power  of  congress  to  make  general  deposits  of  public 
revenue  in  banks,  or  to  authorize  the  reception  of  anything  but  gold  and 
silver  in  debts  and  dues  to  the  government.  Mr.  W.  referred  to  Mr. 
Madison,  who,  in  opposing  the  first  bank  charter  in  1791,  argued  that 
a  bank  of  the  United  States  was  not  necessary  to  government  as  a 
depository  of  public  moneys,  because  its  use  could  be  supplied  by  other 
banks.  And  in  1800,  congress  made  it  the  duty  of  collectors  of  customs 
to  deposit  bonds  for  duties  in  the  bank  and  its  branches  for  collection. 
In  1811,  and  1816,  the  same  power  was  recognized;  as  also  in  the  depo- 
sit bill  of  1836;  the  main  object  of  which  was  to  regulate  deposits  in 
the  state  banks.  The  same  principle  was  incorporated  in  the  bank 
charter  of  1816,  which  was  reported  by  the  gentleman  himself;  and  it 
passed  without  objection  from  any  quarter.  Several  other  cases  were 
referred  to  in  which  Mr.  Calhoun  had  approved  the  deposit  of  money  in 
banks.  These  and  other  allusions  to  public  acts  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  drew 
from  him  a  retort  to  the  charge  of  inconsistency. 

Mr.  Calhoun  adverted  to  the  course  of  Mr.  Webster  on  the  tariff 
question.  Its  history  rose  subsequent  to  the  late  war  with  Great  Brit- 
ain. The  senator's  associate  in  this  attack  (Mr.  Clay)  was  its  leading 
supporter  and  author.  The  senator  was  at  first  opposed  to  the  system. 
In  1820,  in  a  speech  delivered  in  Faneuil  Hall,  he  questioned  its  con- 
stitutionality, and  denounced  its  inequality  and  oppression.  He  then 
held  the  very  sentiments  which  he  (Mr.  C.)  had  so  often  expressed  on 
that  floor.  In  1824,  he  delivered  a  speech  in  the  other  house,  in  reply 
to  Mr.  Clay,  in  which  he  again  denounced  the  system,  in  which  he  com- 
pletely demolished  the  arguments  of  his  opponent.  But  a  few  months 
after,  the  presidential  election  took  place ;  Mr.  Adams  was  elected  by 
the  cooperation  of  the  author  of  the  American  system  and  the  senator. 


DEBATE  BETWEEN  CLAY,  CALHOUN,  AND  WEBSTER.       690 

New  political  combinations  were  formed,  and  resulted  in  an  alliance 
between  the  east  and  the  west,  of  which  that  system  formed  the  basis. 
A  new  light  burst  in  on  the  senator.  A  sudden  thought  struck  him ; 
but  not  quite  as  disinterested  as  that  of  the  German  sentimentalist.  He 
made  a  complete  summerset,  heels  over  head  ;  went  clear  over ;  deserted 
the  free-trade  side  in  a  twinkling,  and  joined  the  restrictive  policy  ;  and 
then  cried  out  that  he  could  no  longer  act  with  me,  whom  he  left  stand- 
ing where  he  had  just  stood,  because  I  was  too  sectional !  With  a  few 
contortions  and  slight  choking,  he  even  gulped  down,  a  few  years  after, 
the  bill  of  abomination — the  tariff  of  1828. 

But  he  had  done  what  was  still  more  surprising.  Oppression  under 
the  tariff  of  1828  had  become  intolerable  to  the  south.  Something  must 
be  done  promptly.  But  one  hope  was  left  short  of  revolution,  and  that 
was  in  the  states  themselves,  in  their  sovereign  capacities  as  parties  to 
the  constitutional  compact.  Fortunately  one  of  the  members  of  the 
union  was  bold  enough  to  interpose  her  sovereign  authority,  and  to  de- 
clare the  protective  tariff  unconstitutional,  and  therefore  null  and  void 
within  her  limits.  We  all  remember  what  followed.  The  proclamation 
was  issued ;  and  the  war  message  and  force  bill  succeeded :  and  the 
state  armed  to  maintain  her  constitutional  rights.  How  did  the  senator 
act  in  this  fearful  crisis  ?  A  sudden  thought  again  struck  him.  He 
again,  in  a  twinkling,  forgot  the  past,  rushed  over  into  the  arms  of  power, 
and  became  the  champion  of  the  most  violent  measures  to  enforce  laws 
which  he  had  pronounced  unconstitutional  and  oppressive. 

Mr.  Calhoun  then  proceeded  to  defend  his  own  course,  and  to  show 
that  it  had  not  been  sectional.  While  the  senator  from  Massachusetts 
had  not  given  a  vote  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  south,  he  (Mr. 
Calhoun)  had  never  withheld  his  support  from  measures  calculated  to 
promote  the  interests  of  the  north,  except  the  tariff  and  certain  appro- 
priations, which  he  deemed  unconstitutional ;  and  he  mentioned  his  con- 
stant support  of  the  navy ;  his  resistance  to  the  embargoes,  non-importa- 
tion and  non-intercourse  acts ;  his  generous  course  in  support  of  manu- 
factures that  sprung  up  during  the  war,  in  which  his  friends  thought  he 
had  gone  too  far ;  to  the  liberal  terms  on  which  the  tariff  controversy 
had  been  settled,  and  the  fidelity  with  which  he  had  adhered  to  it ;  and 
the  system  of  fortifications  for  the  defense  of  our  harbors  which  he  had 
projected  and  commenced,  and  which  were  so  important  to  the  two  great 
interests  of  commerce  and  navigation,  in  which  Mr.  Webster's  section 
had  so  deep  a  stake.  He  had  also  been  quite  as  liberal  to  the  west  as 
the  senator  ;  and,  passing  over  other  instancy,  he  mentioned  his  propo- 
sition to  cede  public  lands  to  the  new  states.  He  said  he  had  intended 
to  compare  their  conduct  in  relation  to  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain, 
but  he  would  not  recur  to  these  by-gone  events,  unless  the  senator 
should  provoke  him  to  it. 


700  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Mr.  Webster,  in  reply,  asked,  why  the  gentleman  had  alluded  to  his 
votes  or  opinions  at  all,  respecting  the  war,  unless  he  had  something  to 
say.  Did  he  wish  to  leave  an  impression  that  something  had  been  done 
or  said  that  was  incapable  of  defense  or  justification  ?  He  would  leave 
an  impression  that  he  had  opposed  it.  How  ?  He  was  not  in  congress 
when  the  war  was  declared,  nor  in  public  life  anywhere.  He  came  into 
congress  during  the  war.  Did  he  oppose  it  ?  Let  the  gentleman  look 
to  the  journals,  or  tax  his  memory.  Let  him  bring  up  any  thing  show- 
ing want  of  loyalty  or  fidelity  to  the  country.  He  did  not  agree  to  all 
that  was  proposed,  nor  did  the  gentleman.  As  a  private  individual,  he 
certainly  did  not  think  well  of  the  embargo  and  the  restrictive  measures 
which  preceded  the  war ;  and  the  senator  was  of  the  same  opinion. 

When  he  came  to  congress,  he  found  the  gentleman  a  leading  member 
of  the  house.  One  of  the  first  measures  of  magnitude  was  Mr.  Dallas' 
proposition  for  a  bank.  It  was  a  war  measure — urged  as  being  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  carry  on  the  war.  The  member  from  South  Carolina 
opposed  it.  He  (Mr.  W.)  agreed  with  him.  It  was  a  mere  paper  bank — 
a  mere  machine  for  fabricating  irredeemable  paper.  He  made  a  speech 
against  it  which  had  often  been  quoted.  If  he  had  been  seduced  into 
error,  the  gentleman  himself,  who  took  the  lead  against  the  measure,  was 
his  seducer.  The  gentleman  had  also  adverted  to  the  navy.  He  had 
said,  and  said  truly,  that,  at  the  commencement  of  the  war,  the  navy 
was  unpopular.  It  was  so  with  the  gentleman's  friends  who  then  con- 
trolled the  politics  of  the  country.  But  he  said  he  differed  with  his 
friends,  and  advocated  the  navy.  And,  said  Mr.  W.,  "I  commend  him 
for  it.  He  showed  his  wisdom.  That  gallant  little  navy  soon  fought 
itself  into  favor,  and  sliowed  that  no  man  who  had  placed  reliance  on  it, 
had  been  disappointed.  In  this,  I  was  exactly  of  the  same  opinion  with 
the  honorable  gentlem.an." 

In  reply  to  the  charge  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  Mr.  Webster  had  also 
proved  himself  unfriendly  to  the  south,  by  his  not  voting  his  resolutions 
on  slavery,  Mr.  W.  said,  if  he  was  for  that  to  be  regarded  as  an  enemy 
to  the  south,  be  it  so.  He  could  not  purchase  favor  by  the  sacrifice  of 
conscientious  convictions.  The  principal  resolution  declared,  that  con- 
gress had  plighted  its  faith  not  to  interfere,  either  with  slavery  or  the 
slave  trade,  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  This  he  did  not  believe ; 
therefore  he  could  not  vote  for  the  proposition. 

In  regard  to  the  tariff,  Mr.  W.  said  :  "  He  charges  me  with  inconsis- 
tency. I  will  state  the  facts.  Let  us  begin  at  the  beginning.  In  1816, 
I  voted  against  the  tariff  law  which  then  passed.-  In  1824,  I  again 
voted  against  the  tariff  law  which  was  then  proposed,  and  which  passed. 
A  majority  of  New  England  votes,  in  1824,  was  against  the  tariff  sys- 
tem.    The  bill  received  but  one  vote  from  Massachusetts ;  but  it  passed. 


701 

The  policy  was  established ;  New  England  acquiesced  in  it ;  conformed 
her  business  and  pursuits  to  it ;  embarked  her  capital  and  employed  her 
labor,  in  manufactures ;  and  I  certainly  admit  that,  from  that  time,  I 
have  felt  bound  to  support  interests  thus  called  into  being  and  into 
importance,  by  the  settled  policy  of  the  government.  I  have  stated 
this  often  here,  and  often  elsewhere.  The  ground  is  defensible,  and  I 
maintain  it.  *  *  *  What  is  there  in  all  this  for  the  gentleman  to 
complain  of?  Would  he  have  us  always  oppose  the  policy  adopted  by 
the  country  on  a  great  question  ?  Would  he  have  minorities  never  sub- 
mit to  the  will  of  majorities  ? 

"  I  remember  to  have  said  at  the  meeting  in  Faneuil  hall,  that  pro- 
tection appeared  to  be  regarded  as  incidental  to  revenue,  and  the  inci- 
dents could  not  be  carried  fairly  above  the  principal :  in  other  words, 
that  duties  ought  not  to  be  laid  for  the  mere  object  of  protection.  I 
believe  that,  if  the  power  be  inferred  only  from  the  revenue  power, 
the  protection  could  only  be  incidental.  But  I  have  said  in  this  place 
before,  and  I  repeat,  that  Mr.  Madison's  publication  after  that  period, 
and  his  declaration  that  the  convention  did  intend  to  grant  the  power  of 
protection,  under  the  commercial  clause,  placed  the  subject  in  a  new  and 
clear  light.  I  will  add,  sir,  that  a  paper  drawn  up  by  Dr.  Franklin,  and 
read  by  him  to  a  circle  of  friends  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  eve  of  the 
assembling  of  the  convention,  respecting  the  powers  which  the  proposed 
new  government  ought  to  possess,  shows,  perfectly  plain,  that,  in  regu- 
lating commerce,  it  was  expected  congress  would  adopt  a  course  which 
should,  to  some  degree,  protect  the  manufactures  of  the  north.  He  cer- 
tainly went  into  the  convention  himself  under  that  conviction." 

Mr.  W.  adverted  to  a  declaration  of  Mr.  C,  that  they  had  always 
differed  on  great  constitutional  questions.  He  said :  "  Sir,  this  is 
astounding.  *  *  *  jje  means  that  he  has  always  given  to  the  con- 
stitution a  construction  more  limited,  better  guarded,  less  favorable  to 
the  extension  of  the  powers  of  this  government",  than  that  which  I  have 
given  to  it.  He  has  always  interpreted  it  according  to  the  strict  doc- 
trine of  state  rights !  *  #  #  Sir,  is  there  a  man  in  my  hearing, 
.  .  .  who  ever  heard,  supposed,  or  dreamed,  that  the  honorable  member 
belonged  to  the  state  rights  party  before  the  year  1 825  ?  *  *  * 
The  truth  is,  sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  had  acted  a  very  important 
and  useful  part  during  the  war.  In  the  fall  of  1815,  the  14th  congress 
assembled.  It  was  full  of  ability ;  and  the  gentleman  stood  high  among 
its  distinguished  members.  .  .  .  During  that  congress  he  took  a  decided 
lead  in  all  those  great  measures  which  he  has  since  so  often  denounced 
as  unconstitutional  and  oppressive — the  bank,  the  tariff,  and  internal 
improvements.  ...  He  was  a  full  length  ahead  of  all  others  in  mea- 


702  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

sures  wMcli  were  national,  and  which  required  a  broad  and  liberal  con- 
struction of  the  constitution." 

The  tariif,  Mr.  W.  said,  was  a  South  Carolina  measure,  as  the  votes  would 
show,  and  was  intended  for  the  benefit  of  South  Carolina  interests.  Even 
the  minimum,  that  subject  of  so  much  wrathful  rhetoric,  was  of  southern 
origin,  and  had  a  South  Carolina  parentage.  And  next,  as  to  the  doctrine 
of  internal  improvements,  that  other  usurpation,  that  other  oppression, 
which  had  come  so  near  to  justifying  violent  abruption  of  the  government, 
and  scattering  the  union  to  the  four  winds.  Said  Mr.  W.  :  "  It  is  an 
indisputable  truth,  that  he  is  himself  the  man — the  ipse  that  first  brought 
forward,  in  congress,  a  scheme  of  general  internal  improvement,  at  the 
expense,  and  under  the  authority  of  this  government."  The  bank  was 
chartered  in  1816.  Eor  the  privilege  of  the  charter,  the  proprietors 
paid  one  and  a  half  million  dollars  ;  and  the  government  took  seven  mil- 
lions of  the  stock  of  the  bank.  Early  in  the  next  session,  December, 
1816,  the  gentleman  moved  to  set  apart  this  bonus  and  the  bank  stock 
as  a  permanent  fund  for  internal  improvements ;  and  was  chairman  of 
the  committee,  and  reported  a  bill  accordingly.  This  bill  went  the 
whole  doctrine,  at  a  single  jump,  and  announced  internal  improvement 
as  one  of  the  objects  of  this  government,  on  a  grand  and  systematic 
plan.  He  went  even  beyond  Timothy  Pickering,  who,  having  offered  an 
amendment  requiring  the  money  "  to  be  applied  in  constructing  such 
roads,  canals,  &c.,  in  the  several  states,  as  congress  might  direct,  with 
the  assent  of  the  states,"  the  gentleman  immediately  moved  to  strike 
out  the  words,  "  with  the  assent  of  the  states.'^''  He  advocated  both  the 
policy  of  internal  improvement,  and  the  power  of  congress  over  the  sub- 
ject :  and  the  bill  passed  the  house  with  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Picker- 
ing with  these  words  retained.     [Note  K.] 

The  debate  did  not  end  here.  We  cannot,  however,  extend  this  sketch, 
which  has  already  exceeded  the  limits  intended.  But  as  few  American 
statesmen  have  ever  attained  a  higher  eminence,  or  borne  a  more  imjpor- 
tant  part  in  the  government,  than  Clay,  Calhoun,  and  Webster,  any 
political  history  which  did  not  properly  present  their  principles  and  acts 
during  their  long  public  career,  would,  it  was  thought,  be  materially 
defective. 

A  joint  resolution  virtually  repealmg  the  specie  circular  of  July,  1836, 
was  passed.  May  31,  1838,  by  large  majorities  in  both  houses,  and 
became  a  law  by  the  approval  of  the  president.  The  resolution  declared, 
"  That  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  to  make  or 
to  continue  in  force,  any  general  order  which  shall  create  any  difference 
between  the  different  branches  of  revenue,  as  to  the  money  or  medium 
of  payment  in  which  debts  or  dues,  accruing  to  the  United  States,  may 


ANNEXATION    OP    TEXAS.  703 

be  paid."  At  the  time  of  issuing  the  circular,  in  1836,  no  treasury  notes 
were  in  existence ;  consequently,  at  the  time  of  passing  the  above  resolu- 
tion, not  even  these  notes,  previously  issued,  were  receivable  for  public 
lands.  By  this  act,  all  payments  to  the  government  might  be  made 
either  in  specie,  treasury  notes,  or  the  bills  of  specie  paying  banks.  By 
acts  of  April  and  June,  1836,  however,  no  bank  notes  of  any  denomina- 
tion less  than  twenty  dollars,  nor  those  of  any  bank  issuing  notes  or  bills 
of  a  less  denomination  than  five  dollars,  were  to  be  received.  A  circular 
to  this  effect  was  issued  from  the  treasury  department  to  all  receivers 
and  collectors  of  public  money,  the  day  after  the  passage  of  the  resolu- 
tion above  mentioned. 


CHAPTEK   LYII. 

ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS. —  SPEECHES     OF    PRESTON    AND    ADAMS. PROPOSI- 
TION   WITHDRAWN    BY    TEXAS. 

The  recognition  of  the  independence  of  Texas  at  the  last  session  of 
congress,  (1836-37,)  and  the  application  of  that  republic  for  annexation 
to  the  United  States,  furnished  new  aliment  to  the  anti-slavery  excite- 
ment. To  the  petitions  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  were  now  added  remonstrances  against  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
Kesolutions  were  passed  by  the  legislatures  of  several  states,  to  the  same 
effect.  In  some  states,  legislative  resolutions  were  adopted  in  favor  of 
annexation. 

Mr.  Preston,  senator  from  South  Carolina,  said  these  memorials  were 
known  to  come  from  a  particular  quarter,  and  from  a  particular  class  of 
politico-philanthropists.  He  therefore  gave  notice,  that  he  should  feel 
himself  compelled  to  introduce  a  proposition,  at  an  early  day,  for  the- 
annexation  of  Texas  to  the  union.  Accordingly,  on  the  4th  of  January, 
1838,  he  offered  the  following: 

"  Whereas,  the  just  and  true  boundary  of  the  United  States  under  the 
treaty  of  Louisiana,  extended  on  the  south-west  to  the  Rio  Grande  del 
Norte,  which  river  continued  to  be  the  boundary  line  until  the  territory 
west  of  the  Sabine  was  surrendered  to  Spain  by  the  treaty  of  1819; 

"  And  whereas  such  surrender  of  a  portion  of  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  is  of  evil  precedent  and  doubtful  constitutionality  ; 

"  And  whereas  many  weighty  considerations  of  policy  make  it  expe- 
'lient  to  reestablish  the  said  true  boundary,  and  to  reannex  to  the  United 


704  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

States  the  territory  occupied  by  the  state  of  Texas,  with  the  consent  of 
the  said  state : 

"  Be  it  therefore  resolved,  That,  with  the  consent  of  the  said  state 
previously  had,  and  whenever  it  can  be  effected  consistently  with  the 
faith  and  treaty  stipulations  of  the  United  States,  it  is  desirable  and 
expedient  to  reannex  the  said  territory  to  the  United  States." 

On  the  24th  of  April,  1838,  the  resolution  was  taken  up  for  consider- 
ation, and  supported  by  a  speech,  which,  though  not  devoid  of  argument, 
is  most  valuable  for  the  historical  information  which  it  contains : 

Mr.  Preston  said  his  proposition  was  not  indecorous  or  presumptuous, 
since  the  lead  had  been  given  by  Texas  herself.  The  question  of  annex- 
ation, on  certain  terms,  had  been  submitted  to  the  people  of  the  republic, 
and  decided  in  the  affirmative ;  and  a  negotiation  had  been  proposed  for 
effecting  the  object.  Nor  did  his  resolution  give  just  cause  of  offense  to 
Mexico.  Its  terms  guarded  our  relations  with  that  republic.  Our 
intercourse  with  Mexico  should  be  characterized  by  fair  dealing,  on 
account  of  her  unfortunate  condition,  resulting  from  a  long  continued 
series  of  intestine  dissensions.  As  long,  therefore,  as  she  should  attempt 
to  assert  her  pretensions  by  actual  force,  or  as  long  as  there  was  a  reason- 
able prospect  that  she  had  the  power  and  the  will  to  resubjugate  Texas, 
he  would  not  interfere.  He  believed  that  period  had  already  passed. 
In  this  opinion  he  differed,  perhaps,  from  the  executive.  The  negotia- 
tion had  been  declined  by  the  secretary  of  state,  because  it  would  involve 
our  relations  with  Mexico.  Admitting  that  the  executive  had  more 
extensive  and  exact  information  upon  this  question  than  he  (Mr.  P.) 
could  have ;  the  resolution  therefore  expressed  an  opinion  in  favor  of 
annexation  only  when  it  could  be  done  without  disturbing  our  relations 
with  Mexico. 

The  acquisition  of  territory,  Mr.  P.  said,  had  heretofore  been  effected 
by  treaty  ;  and  this  mode  of  proceeding  had  been  proposed  by  the  Texan 
minister.  Gen.  Hunt.  But  he  believed  it  would  comport  more  with  the 
importance  of  the  measure,  that  both  branches  of  the  government  should 
concur ;  the  legislature  expressing  a  previous  opinion ;  which  being  done, 
all  difficulties  might  be  avoided  by  a  treaty  tripartite,  between  Mexico, 
Texas,  and  the  United  States,  in  which  the  consent  and  confirmation  of 
Mexico  (for  a  pecuniary  consideration,  perhaps,)  might  be  had  without 
infringing  the  acknowledged  independence  and  free  agency  of  Texas. 

Mr.  P.  proceeded  to  show  that  the  Texan  territory  was  once  a  part  of 
the  United  States.  In  1762,  France  ceded  Louisiana  to  Spain.  In 
1800,  Spain  receded  it  to  France.  In  1804,  France  ceded  it  to  the 
United  States.  The  extent  of  the  French  claim,  therefore,  determined 
ours,  and  included  Mississippi  and  all  the  territories  drained  by  its  west- 


SPEECHES    OF    TRESTO;?    AND    ADAMS.  705 

ern  tributaries.  It  rested  upon  the  discovery  of  La  Salle,  iu  1683,  who 
penQtrated  from  Canada  h}  land,  descended  the  Mississippi,  and  estab- 
lished a  few  posts  on  its  banks.  Soon  afterwards,  endeavoring  to  enter 
the  mouth  of  that  river  from  the  Gulf,  he  passed  it  unperceived,  and 
sailing  westward,  discovered  the  bay  of  St.  Bernard,  now  called  Mata- 
gorda, whence,  a  short  distance  in  the  interior,  he  established  a  military 
post  on  the  bank  of  the  Guadaloupe,  and  took  possession  of  the  country 
in  the  name  of  his  sovereign.  The  western  limits  of  the  territory, 
enuring  to  the  French  crown  by  virtue  of  this  discovery,  was  determined 
by  the  application  of  a  principle  recognized  by  European  powers  making 
settlements  in  America,  viz.  :  that  the  dividing  line  should  be  established 
at  a  medium  distance  between  their  various  settlements.  At  the  time 
of  La  Salle's  settlement,  the  nearest  Spanish  possession  was  a  small  post 
called  Panuco,  at  the  point  where  a  river  of  that  name  falls  into  the  bay 
of  Tampico.  The  medium  line  between  Panuco  and  the  Guadaloupe  was 
the  Rio  Grande,  which  was  assumed  as  the  true  boundary  between  France 
and  Spain.  France  asserted  her  claim  to  that  boundary  from  16S5,  the 
period  of  La  Salle's  discovery,  up  to  1762,  when,  by  the  cession  of 
Louisiana  to  Spain,  the  countries  were  united  and  the  boundaries 
obliterated. 

Mr.  P.  referred  to  Mr.  Adams'  letter  to  Don  Onis,  of  March,  1818, 
in  which  he  recapitulated  the  testimony  in  favor  of  the  French  title. 
Mr.  JelFerson  expressed  the  same  opinion.  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinck- 
ney,  in  1805,  in  obedience  to  instructions  from  Mr.  Madison,  then  secre- 
tary of  state,  asserted  our  claim  west  to  the  Rio  Grande,  in  their 
correspondence  with  the  Spanish  commissioner.  Mr.  Monroe,  when  pre- 
sident, held  equally  strong  language,  through  Mr.  Adams,  his  secretary 
of  state.     Gen.  Jackson  entertained  the  same  opinion. 

To  the  testimony  of  these  presidents,  he  added  the  authority  of  the 
senator  from  Kentucky.  During  the  delay  on  the  part  of  Spain,  in 
ratifying  the  treaty  of  1819,  that  senator,  then  in  the  other  house,  taking 
the  same  view  of  the  treaty  which  he  (Mr.  P.)  was  now  urging — that  it 
was  a  cession  of  a  part  of  our  territory  to  which  the  treaty-making  power 
was  incompetent,  offered  the  following  resolutions  : 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  vests  iu 
congress  no  power  to  dispose  of  the  territory  belonging  to  them  ;  and 
that  no  treaty  purporting  to  alienate  any  portion  thereof  is  valid,  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  congress. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  the  equivalent  proposed  to  be  given  by  Spain  to 
the  United  States,  for  that  part  of  Louisiana  west  of  the  Sabine,  was 
inadequate,  and  that  it  would  be  inexpedient  to  make  a  transfer  thereof 
to  any  foreign  power." 

45 


706  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  author  of  these  resolutions,  in  advocating  them,  said  :  "  He  pre- 
sumed the  spectacle  would  not  be  presented  of  questioning,  in  this  branch 
of  the  government,  our  title  to  Texas,  which  had  been  constantly  main- 
tained by  the  executive  for  more  than  fifteen  years  past,  under  three  suc- 
cessive administrations."  And  he  said  :  "In  the  Florida  treaty,  it  was 
not  pretended  that  the  object  was  simply  a  declaration  of  where  the 
western  line  of  Louisiana  was ;  it  was,  on  the  contrary,  the  case  of 
an  avowed  cession  of  territory  from  the  United  States  to  Spain.  The 
whole  of  the  correspondence  manifested  that  the  respective  parties  to  the 
negotiation  were  not  engaged  so  much  in  an  inquiry  where  the  limit  of 
Louisiana  was,  as  where  it  should  be.  We  find  various  limits  discussed. 
#  *  *  ]?iually  the  Sabine  is  fixed,  which  neither  of  the  parties  ever 
contended  was  the  ancient  limit  of  Louisiana.  *  *  *  And  the  treaty 
itself  proclaims  its  purpose  to  be  a  cession  of  the  United  States  to  Spain." 
Such,  Mr.  P.  said,  were  the  opinions  of  the  senator  in  1820,  and  he 
trusted  the  wisdom  and  patriotism  which  warred  against  that  rash  treaty 
of  1819,  would  now  be  exerted  against  its  great  and  growing  evils,  by 
the  reannexation  of  Texas. 

But  he  took  higher  ground  than  this.  Mr.  Clay  rested  the  constitu- 
tional objection  upon  the  incompetency  of  the  treaty-making  power  to 
alienate  territory;  he  (Mr.  P.)  considered  it  incompetent  to  the  whole 
government.  The  constitution  vests  in  congress  the  power  "  to  dispose 
of  the  territory  or  other  property  of  the  United  States."  This  clause 
was  inserted  to  give  power  to  effect  the  objects  for  which  the  states  had 
granted  these  lands  to  the  general  government ;  and  the  true  exposition 
of  the  clause  was  found  in  our  vast  and  wise  land  system.  It  was  never 
dreamed  that  congress  could  dispose  of  the  sovereignty  of  territory  to  a 
foreign  power.  The  south,  he  said,  had  gone  blindly  into  this  treaty. 
The  importance  of  Florida  had  led  them  precipitately  into  a  measure 
by  which  we  threw  a  gem  away  that  would  have  bought  ten  Floridas. 
Under  any  circumstances,  Florida  would  have  been  ours  in  a  short  time; 
but  our  impatience  had  induced  us  to  purchase  it  by  a  territory  ten 
times  as  large,  a  hundred  times  as  fertile,  and  to  give  five  millions  of 
dollars  into  the  bargain.  He  acquiesced  in  the  past ;  but  he  proposed 
to  seize  the  present  fair  and  just  occasion  to  remedy  the  mistake  made 
in  1819  ;  to  repair,  as  far  as  possible,  the  evil  effect  of  a  breach  of  the 
constitution,  by  getting  back  into  the  union  that  fair  and  fertile  province 
which,  in  an  evil  hour,  we  severed  from  the  confederacy. 

This  proposition  which  now  inflamed  the  public  mind  was  not  a  novel 
policy.  It  was  strange  that  a  measure  which  had  been  urged  for  twelve 
years  past  should  be  met  by  a  tempest  of  opposition ;  and  very  strange 
that  he  should  be  riding  upon  and  directing  the  atorm,  who  was  first  to 


SPEECHES    OP    PRESTON    AND    ADAMS.  707 

propose  tlie  aimexation  of  Texas,  as  one  of  the  earliest  measures  of  his 
administration  after  he  was  made  president.  He  had  endeavored  to 
repair  the  injury  inflicted  upon  the  country  by  the  treaty  of  1819.  As 
secretary  of  state  in  1819,  he  negotiated  the  treaty  of  transfer;  in  1825, 
as  president  of  the  United  States,  he  instituted  a  negotiation  for  the 
reannexation.  Through  his  secretary  of  state,  Mr.  Clay,  he  instructed 
Mr.  Poinsett,  minister  to  Mexico,  to  urge  a  negotiation  for  the  reacqui- 
sition  of  Texas,  and  the  establishment  of  the  south-west  line  of  the 
United  States  at  the  Rio  Grande  del  Norte,  Jackson  and  Van  Buren 
had  continued  the  effort ;  and  why  it  had  failed,  it  was  useless  now  to 
inquire.  It  was  certain,  that  president  Jackson  never  lost  sight  of  it, 
and  that  he  continued  to  look  to  its  accomplishment  as  one  of  the 
greatest  events  of  his  administration,  to  the  moment  when  the  title  of 
]\Iexico  was  extinguished  for  ever  by  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto.  [Ap- 
pendix, Note  L.] 

Mr.  P.  considered  the  boundary  line  established  by  the  treaty  of 
1819,  as  an  improper  one,  not  only  depriving  us  of  an  extensive  and 
fertile  territory,  but  winding  with  "  a  deep  indent"  upon  the  valley  of 
the  Mississippi  itself,  running  upon  the  Red  river  and  the  Arkansas, 
It  placed  a  foreign  nation  in  the  rear  of  our  Mississippi  settlements, 
within  a  stone's  throw  of  that  great  outlet  which  discharged  the  com- 
merce of  half  the  union.  The  mouths  of  the  Sabine  and  the  Mississippi 
were  of  a  dangerous  vicinity.  The  great  object  of  the  purchase  of 
Louisiana  was  to  remove  all  possible  interference  of  foreign  states  in 
the  vast  commerce  of  the  outlet  of  so  many  states.  By  the  cession  of 
Texas,  this  policy  had  been  to  a  certain  extent  compromised.  He  also 
referred  to  the  instructions  of  secretary  Van  Buren  to  Mr.  Poinsett, 
saying  :  "  The  line  proposed  as  the  most  desirable  to  us  would  consti- 
tute a  most  natural  separation  of  the  resources. of  the  two  nations." 

Mr.  P.  next  considered  the  report  of  a  committee  of  the  Massachu- 
setts legislature,  which  said :  "  The  committee  do  not  believe  that  any 
power  exists  in  any  branch  of  this  government,  or  in  all  of  them  united, 
to  consent  to  such  a  union,  (viz.  with  the  sovereign  state  of  Texas,)  nor, 
indeed,  does  such  authority  pertain,  as  an  incident  of  sovereignty,  or 
othetwise,  to  the  government,  however  absolute,  of  any  nation."  Both 
of  these  propositions  he  controverted.  As  to  the  powers  of  this  govern- 
ment, the  mistake  of  the  committee  laid  in  considering  it,  as  to  its 
nature  and  powers,  a  consolidated  government.  The  states  originally 
came  together  as  sovereign  states,  having  no  power  of  reciprocal  control. 
North  Carolina  and  Rhode  Island  stood  off"  for  a  time,  and  at  length 
came  in  by  the  exercise  of  a  sovereign  discretion.  So  Missouri  and 
other  new  states  were  fully  organized  and  perfect,  and  self-governed, 


708  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

"before  thej  came  in ;  and  so  might  Texas  be  admitted.  The  power  to 
admit  new  states  was  expressly  given ;  and  by  the  very  terms  of  the 
grant  they  must  be  states  before  they  were  admitted.  The  power 
granted  to  congress  was,  not  to  create^  but  to  admit  new  states ;  the 
states  created  themselves.  Missouri  and  Michigan  had  done  so,  and 
exercised  all  the  functions  of  self-government,  while  congress  deliberated 
whether  they  should  be  admitted.  In  the  mean  time,  the  territorial 
organization  was  abrogated,  and  the  laws  of  congress  superseded. 

After  some  farther  discussion  of  the  question,  Mr.  P.  said  :  '•  There 
is  no  point  of  view  in  which  the  proposition  for  annexation  can  be  con- 
sidered, that  any  serious  obstacle  in  point  of  form  presents  itself  If 
this  government  be  a  confederation  of  states,  then  it  is  proposed  to  add 
another  state  to  the  confederation.  If  this  government  be  a  consolida- 
tion, then  it  is  proposed  to  add  to  it  additional  territory  and  popula- 
tion. That  we  can  annex,  and  afterwards  admit,  the  cases  of  Florida 
and  Louisiana  prove.  We  can  therefore  deal  with  the  people  of  Texas 
for  the  territory  of  Texas;  and  the  people  can  be  secured  in  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  the  constitution,  as  were  the  subjects  of  Spain  and 
France." 

Having  considered  these  "  formal  difficulties,"  he  next  adverted  to 
those  which  exercised  a  more  decisive  influence  over  that  portion  of  the 
union  which  was  offering  such  determined  opposition  to  this  measure. 
He  regarded  this  joint  movement  of  the  northern  states  as  "  a  combina- 
tion conceived  in  a  spirit  of  hostility  towards  one  section,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  aggrandizing  the  political  power  of  another."  It  could  not  fail 
to  make  a  deep  and  mournful  impression  upon  the  south,  that  the  oppo- 
sition to  the  proposed  measure  was  contemporaneous  with  the  recent 
excitement  on  the  subject  of  abolition.  He  said  :  "  All  men,  of  all 
parties,  from  all  sections,  in  and  out  of  office,  Mr.  Adams  most  con- 
spicuous amongst  them,  desired  the  acquisition  of  Texas,  until  the 
clamorous  interference  in  the  affairs  of  the  south  was  caught  up  in  Nev/ 
England  from  Old  England.  Then,  for  the  first  time,  objections  were 
made  to  this  measure ;  then  those  very  statesmen  who  were  anxious  for 
the  acquisition  of  Texas  for  their  glory,  found  out  that  it  would  subvert 
the  constitution  and  ruin  the  country.  *  *  *  You  are  called  upon 
to  declare  that  the  southern  portion  of  your  confederacy,  by  reason  of 
certain  domestic  institutions,  in  the  judgment  of  your  petitioners  wicked 
and  detestable,  is  to  be  excluded  from  some  part  of  the  benefits  of  this 
government.  The  assumption  is  equally  insulting  to  the  feelings  and 
derogatory  to  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  south.  *  *  *  ^e 
neither  can  nor  ought — I  say  it,  Mr.  President,  in  no  light  mood  or 
wrong  temper — we  neither  can  nor  ought  to  continue  in  political  union 
on  such  terms." 


SPEECHES     OF    PRESTON    AND    ADAMS.  709 

Mr.  P.  spoke  of  the  diminution  of  the  comparative  political  power  of 
the  south.  The  sceptre,  he  said,  had  passed  from  them,  and  forever. 
All  that  was  left  them  was  to  protect  themselves.  All  they  asked  was 
some  reasonable  check  upon  an  acknowledged  power ;  some  approach  to 
equipoise  in  the  senate.  All  the  power  they  coveted  was  the  power  to 
resist  incursions.  He  suspected  that  the  idea  of  checking  the  extension 
of  domestic  slavery  was  but  a  hollow  and  hypocritical  pretext  to  cover 
political  designs.  He  did  not  think  the  extension  of  slave  territory  and 
the  increase  of  the  slaveholding  population,  would  increase  the  number 
of  slaves.  Instead  of  this,  annexation  would  rather  prevent  such 
increase.  *  *  *  We  stand  entirely  on  the  defensive ;  we  desire 
safety^  not  power,  and  we  must  have  it.  Grive  us  safety  and  repose,  by 
doing  what  all  your  most  trusted  and  distinguished  statesmen  have  been 
so  long  anxious  to  do.  Give  them  to  us  by  restoring  what  you  wantonly 
and  unconstitutionally  deprived  us  of.  Give  us  this  just  and  humble 
boon,  by  repairing  the  violated  integrity  of  your  territory,  by  augment- 
ing your  wealth  and  power,  by  extending  the  empire  of  law,  liberty  and 
Christianity." 

In  the  house  of  representatives,  on  the  12th  of  December,  1837,  Mr. 
Adams  presented  a  large  number  of  memorials  against  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  and  moved  that  these  and  all  others  presented  by  himself  and 
his  colleagues  at  the  extra  session,  be  referred  to  a  select  committee. 
His  colleagues  had  assented  to  approve  the  motion.  Mr.  Howard,  of 
Maryland,  having  moved  their  reference  to  the  committee  on  foreign 
affairs,  Mr.  Adams  expressed  his  views  on  the  question  of  annexation  in 
a  manner  which  subjected  him  to  several  interruptions. 

Mr.  Adams  said  he  and  his  colleagues  viewed  this  question  as  one 
which  involved  even  the  integrity  of  the  union — a  question  of  the  most 
deep,  abiding  and  vital  interest  to  the  whole  American  nation.  "  For," 
said  he,  "  in  the  face  of  this  house,  and  in  the  face  of  Heaven,  I 
avow  it  as  my  solemn  belief,  that  the  annexation  of  an  independent 
foreign  power  to  this  government,  would,  ipso  facto  ^  be  a  dissolution  of 
this  union.  And  is  this  a  subject  for  the  peculiar  investigation  of  your 
committee  on  foreign  affairs  ?"  Mr.  A.  said  the  question  involved  was, 
whether  a  foreign  nation — acknowledged  as  such  in  a  most  unprecedented 
and  extraordinary  manner,  by  this  government,  a  nation  "  damned  to 
everlasting  fame"  by  the  reinstitution  of  that  detestable  system,  slavery, 
after  it  had  once  been  abolished  within  its  borders — should  be  admitted 
into  union  with  a  nation  of  freemen.  "  For,  sir,"  said  Mr.  A.,  "  that 
name,  thank  God,  is  still  ours !  And  is  such  a  question  as  this  to  bo 
referred  to  a  committee  on  foreign  affairs?" 

Mr.  A.  said  the  exact  grounds  upon  which  the.  memorialists  based  their 


710  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

prayer,  were  not  yet  oflScially  known  to  the  liouse.  He  had  presented 
one  hundred  and  ninety  petitions  upon  this  subject,  signed  by  some 
20,000  persons,  and  his  colleagues  had  presented  collectively  a  larger 
number.  Members  from  other  states  had  also  presented  similar  memo- 
rials ;  but  his  colleagues  had  thought  it  fitting  to  move  the  reference  to 
a  select  committee  of  those  only  which  he  and  they  had  presented.  All 
had  the  same  object ;  and  they  contained  nothing  that  had  the  least 
connection  with  the  foreign  affairs  of  the  country. 

These  memorialists  from  Massachusetts,  Mr.  A.  said,  had  observed 
with  alarm  and  terror  the  conduct  of  the  government  towards  Mexico, 
during  the  last,  and  as  far  as  it  had  gone,  of  the  present  administration, 
in  relation  to  the  a£Fairs  of  Texas.  One  strong  reason  of  the  remon- 
strance, on  the  part  of  his  constituents,  was,  that  the  nation  sought  to 
be  annexed  to  our  own  had  its  origin  in  violence  and  fraud;  an  impression 
by  no  means  weakened  by  the  impulses  given  by  the  late  and  present 
administrations  to  push  on  this  senseless  and  wicked  war  with  Mexico. 
They  had  seen  the  territory  of  that  republic  invaded  by  the  act  of  the 
executive  of  this  government,  without  any  action  of  congress  ;  and  they  had 
seen  conspirators  coming  here,  and  contriving  and  concerting  their  plans 
of  operations  with  members  of  our  own  government !  Amidst  all  these 
demonstrations,  they  had  heard  the  bold  and  unblushing  pretense  that 
the  people  of  Texas  were  struggling  for  freedom,  and  that  the  wrongs 
inflicted  upon  them  by  Mexico  had  driven  them  into  insurrection,  and 
forced  them  to  fight  for  liberty  ! 

There  had  been  recent  evidence  afibrded  the  country  as  to  the  real 
origin  of  the  insurrection.  A  citizen  of  Virginia,  (Dr.  Mayo,)  who  for 
years  had  held  offices  under  the  late  administration,  had  just  issued  a 
pamphlet  in  this  city,  giving  a  copy  of  a  letter  by  himself,  in  December, 
1830,  to  the  president  of  the  United  States,  in  which  he  declared,  that, 
in  February,  1830,  the  person  now  called  president  Houston,  did  in  this 
city,  disclose  to  himself,  the  author  of  this  letter,  all  his  designs  as  to 
this  then  state  of  the  republic  of  Mexico — Texas.  What  that  letter 
contained  as  to  the  disclosure  of  a  scheme  to  be  executed,  was  now  a 
matter  of  history.  It  disclosed  the  particulars  of  a  conversation  which 
detailed  the  plan  of  the  conspiracy,  since  consummated,  to  rob  Mexico  of 
the  province  of  Texas. 

Mr.  A.  then  inquired  what  were  the  pretenses  upon  which  the  dis- 
severment  of  Texas  from  Mexico  were  justified.  As  early  as  1824,  the 
legislature  of  the  republic  of  Mexico,  to  its  eternal  honor,  passed  an  act 
for  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  and  the  abolition  of  slavery ;  and  the 
only  real  ground  of  rebellion  was  that  very  decree :  the  only  object  of 
the  insurrection,  the  revival  of  the  detested  system  of  slavery ;  and  she 


SPEECHES    OF    PRESTON    AND    ADAMS.  711 

had  adopted  a  constitution  denying  to  her  legislature  even  the  iiower  of 
ever  emancipating  her  slaves  ! 

Mr.  Adams  did  not  wish  to  refer  the  memorials  to  the  committee  on 
foreign  aiFairs,  because  it  was  not  properly  constituted.  Its  chairman, 
(Mr.  Howard,)  was  himself  a  slaveholder,  and,  it  was  feared,  entertained 
a  widely  diiFerent  opinion,  as  to  the  morality  of  slavery,  from  that  held 
by  the  mass  of  the  memorialists ;  and  that  a  majority  of  the  committee 
were  in  favor  of  annexing  Texas  to  this  government.  It  was  conforma- 
ble with  the  parliamentary  rule  to  appoint  a  majority  of  a  committee  in 
favor  of  the  prayer  of  the  memorialists.  This  seemed  to  him  as  one  of 
the  incidents  of  freedom  of  petition  itself.  Six  out  of  nine  of  the  com- 
mittee on  foreign  affairs  were  slaveholders ;  and  he  took  it  for  granted, 
that  every  member  of  the  house  who  was  a  slaveholder,  was  ready  for  the 
annexation  of  Texas ;  and  its  accomplishment  was  sought,  not  for  the 
acquisition  of  so  much  new  territory,  but  as  a  new  buttress  to  the  totter- 
ing institution  of  slavery. 

After  a  brief  interruption  by  southern  members,  Mr.  A.  proceeded : 

He  said,  discussion  must  come  :  though  it  might  for  the  present  be 
delayed,  he  believed  it  would  not  forever  be  smothered  by  previous  ques- 
tions, motions  to  lay  on  the  table,  and  all  the  other  means  and  arguments 
by  which  the  institution  of  slavery  was  wont  to  be  sustained  on  that 
floor — the  same  means  and  arguments,  in  spirit,  which  in  another  place 
have  produced  murder  and  arson.  Yes,  sir,  the  same  spirit  which  led  to 
the  inhuman  murder  of  Lovejoy  at  Alton ■ 

The  chair  remarked  that  Mr.  A.  was  straying  from  the  question  of 
reference ;  and  some  conversation  ensued  as  to  his  right  to  proceed, 
which  he  was  at  length  permitted  to  do. 

In  the  course  of  his  remarks,  he  said  that  he  and  his  colleagues  had 
seen,  in  reading  the  late  message  of  the  executive,  how  much  was  not  in 
that  document  as  well  as  how  much  was  in  it.  It  contained  much  allu- 
sion to  the  grievances  of  this  government  at  the  hands  of  Mexico,  and 
none  to  our  relation  with  Texas.  The  annexation  of  Texas  and  the 
proposed  war  with  Mexico,  were  one  and  the  same  thing,  though  express- 
ed in  different  forms.  The  message  was  adverse  to  the  prayer  of  the 
memorialists.  Under  the  decision  of  the  chair,  he  should  reserve  what 
he  had  to  say  further  on  this  point  until  the  mouths  of  members  inclined 
to  advocate  the  cause  of  freedom  upon  that  floor,  should  be  permitted  to 
be  opened  more  widely ;  if  indeed,  there  was  any  hope  that  that  time 
should  ever  arrive. 

Mr.  Wise  said  there  was  no  need,  at  present,  of  any  such  reference  as 
had  been  proposed.  Texas  had  attempted  to  open  a  negotiation  for  ad- 
mission ;  but  her  overture  had  been  declined  on  the  ground  of  our  rela- 


712  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tions  with  Mexico.  No  memorial  in  favor  of  sucli  a  measure  had  ever 
been  before  this  house.  It  would  be  time  enough  to  discuss  the  subject 
dwelt  upon  with  so  much  feeling  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
when  it  should  come  up  regularly  for  discussion.  He  therefore  moved 
to  lay  the  motions  of  reference  on  the  table ;  and,  having  refused  to 
withdraw  his  motion  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Rhett  and  Mr.  Dawson  to 
enable  them  to  reply  to  Mr.  Adams,  the  question  was  taken,  and  decided 
in  the  affirmative  :  yeas,  127;  nays,  68. 

On  the  13th  of  June,  1838,  the  committee  on  foreign  aifairs  reported 
that  there  was  no  proposition  pending  in  the  house  either  for  the  admis- 
sion of  Texas  as  a  state,  or  for  its  territorial  annexation  to  the  United 
States.  And  in  October  it  was  announced  in  the  official  paper  (Globe) 
that,  since  the  proposition  submitted  by  Texas  for  admission  into  the 
union  had  been  declined,  the  Texan  minister  had  communicated  to  our 
government  the  formal  and  absolute  withdrawal  of  that  proposition. 
The  question  was  not  again  agitated  in  congress  during  the  administra- 
tion of  Mr.  Yan  Buren. 


CHAPTER  LYIII. 


PATRIOT     WAR." AFFAIR     OF     THE     CAROLINE. TRIAL       OF 


In  December,  1837,  an  affair  occurred,  which,  for  a  time,  threatened 
to  interrupt  our  amicable  relations  with  Great  Britain.  An  insurrec- 
tionary movement  was  made  in  Upper  Canada,  having  in  view  a  reform 
in  the  government  of  that  province.  A  proclamation  had  been  issued 
from  Navy  island,  signed  by  Wm.  Lyon  Mackenzie,  chairman,  pro.  tem. 
of  the  provincial  government,  calling  upon  the  reformers  to  make  that 
island  their  place  of  rendezvous,  and  to  aid  otherwise  in  revolutionizing 
the  province.  It  offered  a  bounty  of  three  hundred  acres  of  land  to  all 
volunteers ;  and  a  reward  of  five  hundred  pounds  for  Sir  Francis  Head, 
the  governor  of  the  province.  It  stated  that  the  command  of  the  forces 
was  given  to  Gen.  Van  Rensselaer,  a  son  of  Gen.  Solomon  Van  Rens- 
selaer, of  Albany.  The  sympathy  manifested  by  some  citizens  of  the 
United  States  with  the  Canadian  insurgents,  induced  the  governors  of 
New  York  and  Vermont  to  issue  proclamations,  exhorting  the  citizens 
of  these  states  to  refrain  from  any  unlawful  acts  within  the  territory  of 
the  United  States.     Notwithstanding  these  proclamations,  the  insurgents 


AFFAIR  OF  THE  CAROLINE.  713 

were  joined  by  citizens  of  the  United  States ;  whence  also  they  received 
arms  and  munitions  of  war. 

On  the  night  of  the  29th  of  December,  the  steamboat  Caroline,  owned 
by  one  of  our  citizens,  while  lying  at  Schlosser,  on  the  American  shore, 
was  seized  by  a  party  of  seventy  'or  eighty  armed  men  in  boats,  which 
came  from,  and  returned  to  the  Canadian  shore.  The  crew  and  several 
other  persons  on  board,  were  attacked  while  asleep,  and  one  of  them 
killed ;  the  boat  was  set  on  fire,  taken  into  the  river,  and  left  to  be 
carried  over  the  Niagara  falls.  The  boat  having  conveyed  visiters  to 
and  from  Navy  island,  it  was  suspected  by  the  Canadians,  that  it  had 
been  employed  in  transporting  supplies  to  the  insurgents.  It  appeared 
subsequently,  that  the  outrage  had  been  committed  by  the  order  of  the 
British  commanding  officer,  Col.  M'Nab. 

A  proclamation  was  promptly  issued,  (January  5,)  by  president  Yan 
Buren,  enjoining  on  all  citizens  obedience  to  the  laws,  warning  them  that 
the  violation  of  our  neutrality  would  subject  the  offenders  to  punish- 
ment. Information  of  the  affair  was  also  communicated  by  the  presi- 
dent to  congress.  Gen.  Scott  was  forthwith  ordered  to  the  Canada 
frontier  to  assume  the  military  command  there ;  and  requisitions  were 
made  upon  Gov.  Marcy,  of  New  York,  and  Gov.  Jenison,  of  Vermont, 
for  such  militia  force  as  Gen.  Scott  might  require  for  the  defense  of  the 
frontier. 

A  letter  was  also  addressed  by  Mr.  Forsyth,  secretary  of  state,  to  Mr. 
Fox,  British  minister  at  Washington,  communicating  a  copy  of  the 
evidence  of  the  outrage,  which,  having  been  committed,  "  at  the  moment 
when  the  president  was  anxiously  endeavoring  to  allay  the  excitement, 
and  earnestly  seeking  to  prevent  any  unfortunate  occurrence  on  the 
frontier,"  would  "  necessarily  form  the  subject  of  a  demand  for  redress 
upon  her  majesty's  government."  And  the  expectation  was  expressed, 
that  an  early  explanation  might  be  obtained  by  Mr.  Fox  from  the  Cana- 
dian authorities,  of  the  circumstances  of  the  transaction,  and  that,  by 
his  advice,  precautions  might  be  used  to  prevent  similar  occurrences. 

In  the  senate,  a  bill  was  reported  by  the  committee  on  foreign  rela- 
tions, to  protect  the  frontier,  and  to  preserve  our  neutral  relations.  It 
authorized  the  seizure  of  vessels  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  fitted  gut  upon  our  lakes  and  rivers,  with  arms  and  munitions  of 
war  on  board,  when  there  should  be  cause  to  suspect  that  they  were  de- 
signed to  aid  persons  who  had  taken  up  arms  against  the  government  of 
a  neighboring  state  or  colony.  The  bill  passed  the  senate ;  but  in  the 
house  it  was  laid  on  the  table ;  and  a  bill  was  passed,  amending  an  exist- 
ing act  having  in  view  the  same  object;  which  bill  also  passed  the 
senate,  and  became  a  law. 


714  .  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

A  history  of  this  "  patriot  war,"  as  it  was  called,  does  not  come  within 
the  scope  of  this  work.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  all  the  patriot  forces  along 
the  frontier,  from  Vermont  to  Michigan,  were  disbanded  before  the 
ensuing  spring,  and  tranquillity  was  restored.  A  considerable  number 
of  Americans  were  taken  prisoners  by  the  Canadians,  and  tried  under  the 
British  laws.  A  number  of  them  were  convicted  :  some  of  whom  were 
executed,  and  others  sentenced  to  transportation  to  Van  Dieman's  land. 
Of  the  latter  was  Gen.  Sutherland,  one  of  the  principal  commanding 
officers  of  the  patriot  army.  He,  however,  never  was  taken  farther  than 
England,  where  he  was  jfinally  discharged.  It  should  be  added,  that, 
in  November  and  December  of  1838,  an  ill-advised  and  reckless  invasion 
of  Canada  was  attempted  at  Prescott,  opposite  Ogdensburg,  and  another 
at  Sandwich,  near  Detroit.  But  the  almost  entire  destruction  of  the 
invaders,  and  another  proclamation  from  president  Van  Buren,  seem  to 
have  put  a  check  upon  these  movements,  which  soon  after  entirely  ceased. 

There  were  incidents,  however,  growing  out  of  this  attempted  revolu- 
tion, and  involving  legal  principles,  which  deserve  notice  in  this  place. 
Mackenzie,  having  taken  up  his  residence  in  this  country,  was  indicted, 
tried,  and  convicted  in  a  circuit  court  of  the  United  States,  for  a  viola- 
tion of  our  neutrality  law.  In  his  defense,  he  attempted  to  show  that 
the  revolt  in  Canada  was  justifiable  and  proper ;  that  what  he  had  done, 
had  been  done  by  others  with  impunity  and  approval,  as  in  the  cases  of 
Texas,  South  America,  G-reece,  &c. ;  and  he  referred  to  a  decision  of 
this  same  court  in  the  city  of  New  York,  that  it  was  not  a  violation  of 
the  neutrality  act  to  furnish  money,  supplies,  and  munitions  of  war,  to 
enable  Texas  to  carry  on  a  war  against  Mexico. 

The  court,  (Judge  Thompson,)  in  his  charge  to  the  jury,  held,  that 
the  oppression  of  the  people  of  Canada,  though  it  might  justify  an 
attempt  to  free  themselves  from  such  oppression,  had  no  bearing  on 
this  question.  Those  who  governed  those  provinces  might  govern  them 
as  they  pleased,  and  those  who  lived  under  that  government  might  find 
what  fault  they  pleased.  It  was  a  family  quarrel  with  which  we  had 
nothing  to  do.  Any  interference  on  our  part  would  be  improper,  per- 
haps lead  to  war.  To  prevent  such  interference,  the  neutrality  act  was 
passed.  The  act,  however,  did  not  prevent  an  individual  from  entering 
the  service  of  any  body  of  men  or  of  any  nation  ;  it  only  prohibited  the 
assisting  in  fitting  out,  or  the  providing  means  for,  or  aiding  in  an  expe- 
dition /ro^7^  the  United  States  against  a  power  with  which  we  are  at 
peace.  Hence,  the  mere  meeting  together  of  individuals,  or  the  raising 
of  money,  or  the  collection  of  arms,  to  send  to  Texas,  was  not  a  violation 
of  this  law ;  because  it  did  not  contemplate  the  fitting  out  of  an  expedi- 
tion in  this  country,  and  sending  it  to  another  country. 


TRIAL    OF   m'kENZIE    AND    VAN    RENSSELAER.  715 

Reference  had  been  made  to  the  destruction  of  the  Caroline  to  show 
the  existence  of  war.  But  we  had  no  right  to  draw  such  an  inference 
from  that  act.  War  could  not  be  presumed  to  exist,  until  it  had  been 
declared  by  congress.  Nor  was  the  argument  correct,  that  he  alone 
was  responsible  who  organizes  or  commands  an  expedition.  But  any 
person  who  participates  in,  or  is  in  any  way  connected  with  it  is  equally 
culpable. 

It  appeared  that  the  defendant  addressed  a  meeting  in  the  city  of 
BuflFalo.  He  had  endeavored  to  excuse  himself  by  saying  that  he  had 
been  invited  to  do  so.  That,  however,  did  not  affect  the  question  of 
guilt.  But  no  guilt  was  incurred  in  attending  and  addressing  the  meet- 
ing, but  by  his  subsequent  acts :  the  speeches  could  only  go  as  evidence 
of  the  intent  of  what  followed.  He  said  those  in  arms  in  Canada  wanted 
munitions  of  war.  In  this  was  nothing  wrong.  But  after  the  meeting, 
he  joined  Sutherland,  who  asked  for  volunteers  in  the  presence  of  the 
defendant.  There  was  music  at  the  door,  and  a  party  followed  that 
music  with  Sutherland  at  its  head.  And  the  next  day  the  defendant 
was  with  him  at  Black  Rock.  In  what  way  was  he  connected  with  him  ? 
The  proclamation  had  been  produced  as  evidence.  Had  the  proclama- 
tion been  proved  upon  him  ?  It  had  been  proved  that  he  had  procured 
the  printing  of  a  thousand  copies,  had  read  the  proof,  and  at  Navy  island 
had  given  copies  to  Smith  and  others  ;  and  they  had  been  distributed. 
But  this  proclamation  is  important  only  because  it  identifies  him  with 
Sutherland  and  Van  Rensselaer  as  cooperators  in-  the  expedition. 

Under  the  charge  of  which  this  is  a  sketch,  the  defendant  was  found 
guilty.  The  court  having  no  authority  to  send  him  to  the  state's  prison, 
he  was  sentenced  to  eighteen  months'  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail, 
(at  Rochester,)  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  $10.  After  a  confinement  of  ten 
or  eleven  months,  the  residue  of  his  punishment  was  remitted  by  the 
president.  Yan  Rensselaer  was  sentenced  to  six  months'  imprisonment, 
and  a  fine  of  $250.  Being  unable  to  pay  the  fine,  the  president  remit- 
ted the  same. 

Another  case  was  that  of  Alexander  M'Leod,  a  Canadian,  who  was 
charged  with  having  participated  in  cutting  out  and  burning  the  Caro- 
line. He  was  arrested  at  Lockport,  Niagara  county,  N.  Y.,  in  the  fall 
of  1840,  and  committed  to  jail  in  that  place.  He  was  afterwards 
indicted  by  a  grand  jury  for  the  murder  of  Amos  Durfee,  who  was  on 
board  the  Caroline  at  the  time  of  the  burning  of  that  vessel.  This  case 
ex:cited  much  interest,  and  not  a  little  apprehension  of  a  collison  between 
the  two  countries.  M'Leod  had  been  indicted  for  an  offense  against  the 
laws  of  New  York  ;  and,  if  convicted,  it  was  presumed  the  penalty  of 
the  law  would  be  inflicted  upon  him.      But  the  act  for  which  M'Leod 


716  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

had  been  arraigned  having  been  sanctioned  hj  the  British  government, 
that  government  would,  it  was  presumed,  feel  bound  to  protect  its  sub- 
jects. On  this  presumption  was  founded  the  apprehension  above  men- 
tioned. 

In  Maj,  1841,  M'Leod  was  taken  under  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus, 
returnable  at  the  May  term  of  the  supreme  court,  which  was  to  be  held 
in  the  city  of  New  York ;  but  the  decision  of  the  court  was  not  given 
until  the  July  term. .  The  British  government  had,  through  their  minis- 
ter, demanded  the  release  of  M'Leod,  on  the  ground,  "that  the  trans- 
action on  account  of  which  he  had  been  arrested,  was  one  of  a  public 
character,  planned  and  executed  by  persons  duly  authorized  to  do  any 
acts  necessary  for  the  defense  of  her  majesty's  territories,  and  for  the 
protection  of  her  subjects."  Being  thus  in  the  performance  of  a  public 
duty,  it  was  alleged,  "  that  he  could  not  be  made  personally  and  indi- 
vidually answerable  to  the  laws  and  tribunals  of  a  foreign  country." 

The  court  held,  however,  that  the  Canadian  provincial  authorities  had 
no  inherent  right  to  institute  a  public  war ;  nor  did  such  war  exist.  The 
sovereign  power  of  neither  country  had  characterized  the  transaction  as 
a  public  war,  actual  or  constructive.  If  it  were  such  a  war,  the  United 
States  might  take  possession  of  M'Leod  as  a  prisoner  of  war  ;  and  there 
would  have  been  no  need  of  this  motion.  The  civil  war  which  England 
was  prosecuting  against  various  individuals,  had  been  insisted  on  as  a 
ground  of  protection.  The  court  admitted,  "  that  the  strongest  possi- 
ble color  for  the  extraordinary  right  claimed,  was  to  be  derived  from 
taking  the  United  States  to  stand  in  the  attitude  of  a  neutral  nation 
with  respect  to  two  parties  engaged  in  actual  war,  England  on  one  side, 
and  Yan  Rensselaer,  Durfee  and  their  associated  assailants  on  the  other, 
called  by  Grrotius  mixed  war,  being  made  on  one  side  by  public  authority, 
and  on  the  other  by  mere  private  persons.  In  such  a  war,  had  England 
any  right  to  follow  Durfee  into  the  neutral  territory  of  the  United 
States?  According  to  the  books,  she  had  not.  1  Kent's  Com.  119-20. 
Independently  of  fresh  pursuit,  no  writer  on  the  laws  of  nations  had 
ever  ventured  the  assertion,  that  one  of  two  belligerents  could  law- 
fully do  any  hostile  act  against  another  upon  neutral  ground.  All  right- 
ful power  of  M'Leod  and  his  associates  to  harm  any  one,  ceased  the 
moment  they  entered  a  country  with  which  their  sovereign  was  at  peace. 

Much  had  been  said  by  the  prisoner's  counsel  about  the  hardship  of 
treating  soldiers  as  criminals,  who  were  obliged  to  obey  their  sovereign. 
The  court  said  the  rule  was  the  same  in  respect  to  the  soldier  as  to  any 
other  agent  bound  to  obey  the  process  or  command  of  a  superior.  A 
sheriff  is  obliged  to  execute  a  man  regularly  sentenced  to  capital  execu- 
tion it  this  state.     But  should  he  execute  a  man  in  Canada  under  such 


TRIAL    OF    m'lEOD.  717 

sentence,  he  would  be  a  murderer.  A  soldier  in  time  of  war  between  us 
and  England  migbt  be  compelled,  by  an  order  from  our  government,  to 
enter  Canada,  and  fight  and  kill  her  soldiers.  But  should  congress  pass 
an  act  compelling  him  to  do  so  on  any  exigency  in  time  of  peace,  if  he 
should  obey,  and  kill  a  man,  he  would  be  guilty  of  murder. 

This  point  was  strengthened  by  the  citation  of  numerous  authorities  ; 
and  other  arguments  of  the  prisoner's  counsel  were  duly  considered. 
The  court  decided  that  the  prisoner  must  be  remanded  to  take  his  trial 
in  the  ordinary  forms  of  law. 

At  the  extra  session,  (June,  1841,)  the  subject  was  discussed  in  both 
houses  of  congress.  The  discussion  seems  to  have  partaken  in  some 
degree  of  a  party  character,  notwithstanding  the  disclaimers  of  speakers 
of  being  influenced  by  party  feelings.  The  British  minister  (Mr.  Fox) 
having  informed  our  government  that  the  transaction  in  which  M'Leod 
was  concerned  had  been  avowed  by  his  government  as  an  authorized  and 
public  act,  and  that  he  was  instructed  to  demand  the  release  of  M'Leod, 
who,  for  the  performance  of  a  public  duty,  could  not  be  individually 
answerable  to  the  laws  of  a  foreign  country,  our  secretary  of  state,  (Mr. 
Webster j)  took^the  ground  that,  by  this  avowal,  the  British  government 
had  become  responsible  for  the  offense  of  M'Leod,  who  had  acted  under 
the  orders  of  that  government ;  and  that  he  should  be  discharged. 

In  the  senate,  Mr.  Buchanan  maintained  the  opinion  subsequently 
given  by  the  supreme  court  of  New  York,  as  above  stated,  that  the  act 
of  M'Leod  was  an  offense  against  the  laws  of  New  York,  for  which  he 
was  individually  responsible.  Mr.  Forsyth,  Mr.  "Webster's  predecessor, 
had,  in  his  correspondence  with  the  British  minister,  held  that  the  avowal 
of  the  act  of  M'Leod,  if  it  should  be  made,  would  not  exculpate  him ; 
and  it  would,  at  the  same  time,  also  implicate  the  British  government 
in  his  guilt.  In  connection  with  the  demand  for  the  release  of  M'Leod, 
Mr.  Fox  had  entreated  the  president  "  to  take  into  his  most  deliberate 
consideration  the  serious  nature  of  the  consequences  which  must  ensue 
from  a  rejection  of  this  demand."  Mr.  Buchanan  thought  Mr.  Webster 
had  done  wrong  in  giving  an  answer  to  Mr.  Fox,  until  this  threat  had 
been  withdrawn  or  explained.  He  had  not  displayed  sufficient  decision 
and  firmness. 

Mr.  B.,  to  establish  the  responsibility  of  both  the  British  government 
and  M'Leod,  quoted  Vattel,  as  follows:  ''  But  if  the  nation  or  its  chief 
approves  and  ratifies  the  act  of  the  individual,  it  then  becomes  a  public 
concern,  and  the  injured  party  is  then  to  consider  the  nation  as  the  real 
author  of  the  injury,  of  which  the  citizen  was  perhaps  only  the  instru- 
ment." "  If  the  offended  state  has  in  her  power  the  individual  who  has 
done  the  injury,  she  may,  without  scruple,  bring  him  to  justice  and 


718  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

punish  him.  If  he  has  escaped  and  returned  to  his  own  country,  she 
ought  to  apply  to  his  sovereign  to  have  justice  done  in  the  case." 

If  this  doctrine  was  incorrect,  said  Mr.  B.,  to  what  consequences  would 
we  he  forced  ?  A  British  marauder  on  this  side  of  the  line  is  seized  in 
the  very  act.  AVe  are  to  wait  until  we  can  ascertain  whether  his  govern- 
ment recognizes  his  criminal  act  before  we  can  punish  him  for  violating 
our  laws.  If  it  does,  the  jail  door  is  thrown  open,  the  offender,  perhaps 
murderer,  takes  his  flight  to  Canada,  and  we  must  settle  the  question  with 
the  British  government.  Such,  he  said,  was  the  doctrine  of  that  govern- 
ment and  of  our  own  secretary  of  state.  This  principle  would  lead  to  a 
war  with  that  power.  In  a  state  of  war,  captured  invaders  of  our  territory 
would  be  treated  as  prisoners  of  war.  But  in  time  of  peace,  a  man  thus 
taken  could  not  be  made  a  prisoner  of  war.  M'Leod,  however,  was 
not  to  be  punished  under  our  laws,  if  guilty,  lest  we  should  offend  the 
majesty  of  England.  The  laws  of  New  York  were  to  be  nullified,  and 
the  murderer  was  to  run  at  large. 

Mr.  Rives  replied  to  Mr.  Buchanan.  He  said  this  unwarrantable  out- 
rage had  been  committed  in  December,  1837,  and  aroused  the  public 
indignation.  Our  minister  at  London,  (Mr.  Stevenson,)  under  the 
instructions  of  his  government,  represented  the  subject  to  the  British 
government,  to  obtain  a  "  disavowal  and  disapproval  of  the  act,  and  also 
such  redress  as  ihe  nature  of  the  case  required."  Notwithstanding  the 
enormity  of  the  outrage,  the  senator's  political  friends,  the  late  adminis- 
tration, in  whom  he  thinks  there  was  no  want  of  energy  in  prosecuting 
the  demand  for  redress,  slept  over  this  national  injury,  till  March,  1841, 
when  they  went  out  of  power.  So  profound  had  been  the  slumber,  that 
lord  John  Bussell  had  stated  in  the  house  of  commons,  that  the 
complaint  of  the  American  government  had  been,  for  a  long  period, 
considered  as  dropped.  When,  in  1839,  Mr.  Stevenson  wrote  to  Mr. 
Forsyth  to  know  if  he  should  renew  the  subject,  Mr.  F.  replied  No : 
"the  president  expects,  from  the  tone  of  Mr.  Fox's  conversation,  that  the 
British  government  will  answer  your  application  in  the  case  without  much 
further  delay."  But  no  answer  was  given.  All  this  while,  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Caroline  stood  unexplained  and  unavowed  by  the  British 
government ;  and  there  was  nothing  of  a  conclusive  nature  to  determine, 
whether  it  was  to  be  viewed  as  an  authorized  act  of  an  individual,  or  as 
the  public  act  of  the  British  authorities.  In  this  state  of  things  M'Leod, 
in  November  last,  (1 840,)  came  into  the  state  of  New  York,  and,  having, 
from  his  idle,  and,  as  is  now  universally  believed,  false  boasts,  incurred 
the  suspicion  of  having  been  an  actor  in  that  scene,  he  was  arrested  and 
indicted.  In  December,  Mr.  Fox  demanded  the  release  of  M'Leod  on 
the  ground  that  the  destruction  of  the  Caroline  was  a  public  act.     The 


TRIAL    OF    m'lEOD.  719 

demand  was  refused,  because  the  government  of  the  United  States  had 
no  right  to  interfere  with  the  judicial  tribunals  of  New  York  ;  and  the 
recognition  of  the  destruction  of  the  boat  as  a  public  act,  had  not  been 
communicated  to  our  government  by  any  person  authorized  to  make  the 
admission.  Mr.  Fox  stated  to  Mr.  Forsyth,  that  he  was  not  authorized 
to  pronounce  the  decision  of  her  majesty's  government  upon  the  remon- 
strance of  the  United  States  against  the  act  in  question. 

On  the  12th  of  March,  eight  days  after  the  inauguration  of  president 
Harrison,  Mr.  Fox  informed  Mr.  Webster  that  he  had  been  instructed 
to  avow  the  act  as  authorized  by  his  government,  and  again  demanded 
the  release  of  M'Leod.  Mr.  Rives  defended  the  doctrine  of  the  admin- 
istration, that  the  act  having  been  recognized  as  a  public  act,  the  indi- 
vidual was  not  answerable ;  and  he  controverted  the  opinion  of  Mr. 
Buchanan,  that  the  principle  was  applicable  only  to  a  formal  and  declared 
war.  He  read  from  Vattel  a  passage  relating  to  the  case  of  an  unjust 
war :  "  It  is  Ijie  duty  of  subjects  to  suppose"  the  orders  of  their  sover- 
eign "just  and  wise,"  &c.  "When,  therefore,  they  have  lent  their 
assistance  in  a  war  which  is  afterwards  found  to  be  unjust,  the  sovereign 
alone  is  guilty.  He  alone  is  bound  to  repair  the  injuries.  The  sub- 
jects, and  in  particular  the  military,  are  innocent ;  they  have  acted  only 
from  a  necessary  obedience."  "  Government  would  be  impracticable,  if 
every  one  of  its  instruments  were  to  weigh  its  commands." 

Mr.  R.  considered  the  ground  taken  by  our  government  as  highly  hon- 
orable. He  said :  "  The  destruction  of  the  Caroline  being  at  length 
avowed  as  a  public  act,  the  administration  could  not  but  feel  that  it  was 
unworthy  of  the  character  of  the  nation,  to  dignify  a  miserable  and 
subordinate  instrument  who  may  have  been  employed  in  it,  by  making 
him  the  selected  object  of  national  vengeance."  The  priociple  of  ex- 
empting individuals  in  such  cases,  he  said,  was  founded  in  reason  and 
humanity,  and  recognized  by  the  universal  practice  of  civilized  nations. 
"  What,  then,  did  it  become  a  high  minded  and  honorable  government  to 
do  under  these  circumstances  ?  Frankly  and  unreservedly  to  admit  the 
principle — to  put  itself  in  the  right — and  to  do  whatever  should  devolve  on 
it  as  a  moral  and  responsible  power,  to  fuliSll  and  maintain  the  right. 
It  had  a  higher  game — a  nobler  mission — than  to  make  war  upon 
M'Leod."  Mr.  R.  also  adverted  to  what  Mr.  Buchanan  had  denominated 
a  menace  in  the  communication  of  Mr.  Fox.  It  was  remarkable  that 
language  almost  identical,  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  Fox  to  Mr.  Forsyth,  had 
not  aroused  the  jealous  sensibilities  of  the  gentleman.  Said  Mr.  Fox  : 
"  I  can  not  but  see  the  very  grave  and  serious  consequences  that  must 
ensue,  if,  besides  the  injury  already  inflicted  upon  Mr.  M'Leod,  of  a 
vexatious  and  unjust  imprisonment,  any  further  harm  may  be  done  him 


720  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

in  the  progress  of  this  extraordinary  proceeding."  But  I  must  say  that 
punctilios  like  these  are  not  of  substance  sufficient  in  my  opinion,  to 
occupy,  in  this  age  of  the  world,  the  grave  discussions  of  a  body  like  the 
senate  of  the  United  States.  The  calm  dignity  of  conscious  strength  is 
not  prone  to  be  astute  in  imagining  or  suspecting  insult. 

Mr.  R.  added,  that  the  honor  of  the  country  would  not  be  compro- 
mised by  those  to  whose  keeping  it  had  been  intrusted.  The  president 
had  announced,  as  the  maxims  of  his  policy  toward  foreign  powers,  to 
render  justice  to  all^  submitting  to  injustice  from  none  ;  esteeming  it 
"  his  most  imperative  duty  to  see  that  the  honor  of  the  country  shall 
sustain  no  hlejuish?^  And  these  sentiments  found  a  faithful  echo  in  the 
letter  of  th^  secretary  of  state  to  Mr.  Fox :  "  This  republic  does  not 
wish  to  disturb  the  tranquillity  of  the  world.  Its  object  is  peace,  its 
policy  peace.  But  still  it  is  jealous  of  its  rights,  and  among  others, 
and  most  especially,  of  the  right  of  the  absolute  immunity  of  its  territory 
from  aggression  abroad  ;  and  these  rights  it  is  the  duty  and  determina- 
tion of  this  government  fully  and  at  all  times  to  maintain,  while  it  will 
as  scrupulously  refrain  from  infringing  on  the  rights  of  others." 

Mr.  Choate  followed  on  the  same  side,  and  was  replied  to  by  Mr. 
Calhoun,  who  contended,  that  the  authority  or  sanction  of  his  govern- 
ment did  not  exempt  an  individual  from  responsibility  to  the  injured 
government,  even  in  case  of  war.  But  if  gentlemen  should  succeed  in 
making  the  attack  on  the  Caroline  an  act  of  war,  it  would  avail  them 
nothing  in  their  attempt  to  defend  the  demand  of  Mr.  Fox,  or  the  con- 
cession of  Mr.  Webster.  If  it  were  w^ar,  M'Leod  would  be  a  prisoner 
of  war,  and  forfeit  his  liberty ;  and  his  government  would  have  no  right 
to  demand  his  release. 

In  the  house,  a  debate  arose  upon  a  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Floyd, 
of  New  York,  proposing  an  inquiry  into  the  objects  and  result  of  a  visit 
of  the  attorney-general  of  the  United  States  to  the  state  of  New  York, 
in  reference  to  the  trial  of  M'Leod.  Mr.  Adams  dissented  from  the 
opinion  of  the  supreme  court  of  New  York,  delivered  by  Judge  Cowen. 
The  great  and  important  question  with  other  nations  in  relation  to  this 
affair  was,  "  Who  was  right,  and  who  was  wrong  ?  Who  struck  the 
first  blow  ?"  He  held,  that  the  persons  connected  with  the  Caroline  had 
committed  an  act  of  war  against  the  British  government.  Nor  did  he 
subscribe  to  the  opinion  that  every  nation  goes  to  war  on  issuing  a  declar- 
ation or  proclamation  of  war.  Nations  often  wage  war  for  years,  without 
issuing  any  declaration ;  and  the  question  was  not  here  upon  a  declara- 
tion of  war,  but  acts  of  war.  In  the  judgment  of  impartial  men  of  other 
nations,  we  would  be  held  as  a  nation  responsible;  and  the  Caroline  would 
be  considered  in  a  state  of  war  against  Great  Britain — the  worst  kind  of 


TRIAL    OF   m'lEOD.  721 

Wiir — to  sustain  an  insurrection.  There  was  very  little  disguise  about 
this  expedition  :  this  vessel  was  there  for  the  purposes  of  hostility  against 
the  Canadian  government.  What  was  the  steamboat  about  ?  What  had 
she  been  doing  ?  What  was  she  to  do  the  next  morning  ?  And  what 
ought  you  to  do  ?  You  have  reparation  to  make  for  all  the  men  and 
for  all  the  arms  and  implements  of  war  we  had  transported  and  were 
going  to  transport  to  the  other  side,  to  foment  and  instigate  rebellion  in 
Canada. 

Mr.  Adams  defended  the  course  of  the  administration.  He  said  that, 
in  negotiation,  the  United  States  would  be  held  responsible  for  the  per- 
sonal safety  of  M'Leod.  He  approved  the  instructions  given  to  the 
attorney-general  when  sent  to  New  York,  and  which  averred,  that, 
"  whether  the  process  be  criminal  or  civil,  the  fact  of  having  acted  under 
public  authority,  and  in  obedience  to  lawful  superiors,  must  be  regarded 
as  a  valid  defense ;  otherwise  individuals  would  be  holden  responsible 
for  injuries  resulting  from  acts  of  government,  and  even  from  the  opera- 
tions of  public  war."  It  was  true  the  British  government  had  been 
given  to  understand,  that  since  the  avowal  that  M'Leod  had  acted  under 
•authority  he  must  bo  ultimately  released  or  surrendered.  "  And  what 
then  ?"  said  Mr.  A.  "  Is  it  not  so  ?  Why,  sir,  Indian  savages — canni- 
bals, to  whom  revenge  is  the  first  of  virtues — accept  of  ransom  for  the 
blood  of  their  relatives  slain ;  and  is  it  for  a  Christian  nation,  in  cold 
blood,  four  years  after  a  defensive  irregularity  of  border  war,  provoked 
by  their  own  people,  to  hold  a  man  responsible  to  their  own  municipal 
law  for  murder^  because  the  life  of  a  man  was  lost  in  a  nocturnal  foray, 
authorized  by  the  public  authorities,  civil  and  military,  of  the  country 
in  whose  defense  it  was  undertaken  and  achieved  ?  Sir,  there  is  not  a 
civilized  country  on  earth  but  would  cry  shame  upon  us  for  carrying 
such  barbarian  principles  into  practice.  *  *  *  j  ask  every  member 
of  thia  house  to  put  himself  in  the  position  of  a  prisoner  in  a  foreign 
land  for  an  act  done  by  the  orders  of  his  government — for  the  burning 
of  a  boat,  or  the  killing  of  men  :  I  ask  every  man  here  to  put  himself 
in  the  situation  of  M'Leod,  either  in  Great  Britain  or  in  any  part  of 
the  British  dominions,  and  suppose  it  a  matter  of  negotiation  between 
the  two  governments — what  would  he  say  if  the  British  secretary  of 
state,  from  a  representation  that  this  was  done  by  the  orders  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  nation  held  itself  responsible 
for  the  act,  should  say,  '  of  course  ultimately  we  shall  release  him  ?' 
Now,  I  would  ask,  if  this  would  be  disgraceful  to  the  British  nation." 
Mr.  A.  rejoiced  that  the  letter  of  the  secretary  had  calmed  the  irritation 
and  resentment  of  the  British  government  produced  by  the  inflammatory 
report  of  the  house.  It  was  one  of  the  best  papers  ever  written  ;  and 
the  effect  of  it  upon  the  nation  was  to  be  one  of  glory  and  not  of  reproach, 

46 


722  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  resolution  was  laid  on  the  table,  109  to  70. 

This  question  was  also  discussed  in  the  legislature  of  N(iw  York,  on  a 
resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Swackhamer,  of  New  York,  requesting  the 
governor  to  communicate  to  the  house  certain  information  in  reference 
to  the  case  of  M'Leod. 

Mr.  Hoffman  justified,  under  the  British  government,  the  attack 
made  upon  the  Caroline.  The  rebels,  he  said,  had  gained  possession  of 
Navy  Island ;  the  drafts  of  men  there  had  been  made  from  the  United 
States ;  the  ofiicers  in  command  were  over  our  citizens.  By  the  national 
law,  the  sovereign  whose  territory  was  endangered  had  a  right  to  repel 
the  danger ;  and  if  in  so  doing  he  should  momentarily  pass  the  line 
between  the  two  countries,  it  must  be  the  subject  of  negotiation.  He 
would  ask  where  the  man  was  in  this  state  who  would  not  have  obeyed 
a  similar  order  from  the  local  authorities.  In  case  of  sedition  or  rebel- 
lion in  this  state, — if  a  boat  were  seen  daily  plying  from  the  Canadas 
furnishing  those  in  arms  with  the  means  of  warfare,  and  orders  should 
be  issued  by  the  authorities  of  this  state  to  destroy  that  boat,  who  would 
for  a  moment  refuse  to  obey  that  order  ?  He  moved  to  refer  the  reso- 
lution with  instructions  to  bring  in  a  bill  "  to  enter  a  nolle  prosequi  on. 
the  indictment,  and  to  grant  M'Leod  a  safe  conduct  to  his  sovereign." 

The  trial  of  M'Leod  took  place  at  Utica  in  October,  1841 ;  a  special 
term  of  the  circuit  court  having  been  appointed  by  the  legislature  for 
that  purpose.  The  trial  occupied  more  than  a  week.  The  jury,  after 
a  retirement  of  about  twenty  minutes,  returned  with  a  verdict  of  not 
GUILTY.  There  was  testimony  identifying  him  as  one  of  the  party  who 
destroyed  the  Caroline  and  killed  Durfee ;  and  there  were  several  wit- 
nesses to  whom  M'Leod  had  boasted  that  he  had  "  killed  one  d d 

Yankee."     From  the  testimony  of  the  defense,  however,  it  appeared 
that  he  was  during  the  whole  of  that  night  in  Canada. 

The  question  as  to  the  responsibility  of  the  participators  in  the 
destruction  of  the  Caroline  and  the  murder  of  Durfee,  to  the  laws  of 
the  state  of  New  York,  did  n\)t  end  with  the  trial.  A  review  of  the 
opinion  of  Justice  Cowen,  by  eTudge  Tallmadge,  of  the  superior  court 
of  the  city  of  New  York,  was  subsequently  published,  in  which  that 
opinion  is  controverted,  and  the  doctrine  of  Webster,  Adams,  and 
others  is  supported.  Chancellor  Kent,  Judge  Ambrose  Spencer,  and 
other  eminent  jurists,  expressed  their  concurrence  in  the  doctrines  of 
this  review.  A  review  of  Judge  Tallmadge's  review  appeared  in  the 
Democratic  Beview,  maintaining  the  opinion  of  the  supreme  court,  as 
delivered  by  Justice  Cowen  on  the  trial  of  the  habeas  corpus.  Those 
who  desire  to  investigate  this  question  are  referred,  for  the  first  review, 
to  26  Wendell ;  for  the  latter,  to  3  Hill,  p.  635. 


THE    SLAVE    SCHOONER    AMISTAD.  723 


CHAPTER   LIX. 

THE    SLAVE     SCHOONER     AMISTAD. CAPTIVES     LIBERATED. MEETING     OP 

THE    TWENTY-SIXTH    CONGRESS. SEATS  OF  NEW    JERSEY   MEMBERS  CON- 
TESTED,  FLORIDA    WAR. 

In  August,  1839,  a  vessel  lying  near  the  coast  of  Connecticut,  under 
suspicious  circumstances,  was  captured  by  Lieut.  Gedney,  of  the  brig 
Washington,  and  taken  into  New  London.  This  vessel  was  a  schooner, 
called  L'Amistad,  bound  from  Havana  to  Guanaja,  Port  Principe,  with 
fifty-four  blacks  and  two  passengers  on  board.  The  former,  four  nights 
after  they  were  out,  rose  and  murdered  the  captain  and  three  of  the 
crew ;  then  took  possession  of  the  vessel  with  the  intention  of  returning 
to  Africa.  The  two  passengers  were  Jose  Ruiz  and  Pedro  Montez,  the 
former  owning  forty-nine  of  the  slaves,  and  most  of  the  cargo  ;  the  latter 
claiming  the  remaining  five,  all  children  from  seven  to  twelve  years  of 
age,  and  three  of  them  females.  These  two  men  were  saved  to  navigate 
the  vessel.  Instead,  however,  of  steering  for  the  coast  of  Africa,  they 
navigated  in  a  different  direction,  whenever  they  could  do  so  without  the 
knowledge  of  the  Africans.  It  appeared  that  the  slaves  liad  been  pur- 
chased at  Havana,  soon  after  their  arrival  from  Africa.  Cingues,  who 
was  the  son  of  an  African  chief,  and  leader  of  the  revolt,  with  thirty- 
eight  others  of  the  revolters,  was  committed  for  trial ;  and  the  three 
girls  were  put  under  bonds  to  appear  and  testify. 

A  demand  was  soon  after  made  upon  our  government  by  the  acting 
Spanish  minister  in  this  country,  for  the  surrender  of  the  Amistad,  cargo, 
and  alleged  slaves,  to  the  Spanish  authorities. 

The  children  were  brought  before  the  circuit  court  of  the  United 
States,  held  at  Hartford,  in  September,  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpics^  with 
a  view  to  their  discharge,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not  slaves ;  proof 
of  which  was  given  by  two  of  the  prisoners  who  testified  that  the  children 
were  native  Africans.  The  discharge  was  resisted  by  Mr.  Ingersoll, 
counsel  for  the  Spanish  claimants,  who  stated,  that  the  persons  were  libeled 
in  the  district  by  Capt.  Gedney,  his  officers  and  crew,  as  property ;  they 
were  also  libeled  by  the  Spanish  minister  as  the  slave  property  of  Span- 
ish subjects,  and  as  such  ought  to  be  delivered  up ;  and  they  were  libeled 
by  the  district  attorney,  that  they  might  be  delivered  up  to  the  executive, 
in  order  to  their  being  sent  to  their  native  country,  if  it  should  be  found 
right  that  they  should  be  so  sent.  The  counsel  presumed  that  this  (cir- 
cuit) court  would  not,  under  this  writ,  take  this  case  out  of  the  legiti- 
mate jurisdiction  of  the  district  court,  as,  if  the  decision  of  that  court 


724  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

should  not  be  satisfactory,  the  matter  could  be  brought  before  this  court 
by  appeal. 

[For  the  mformation  of  some  readers,  it  may  be  necessary  here  to  say 
that  the  word  lihel^  as  used  in  courts  of  admiralty,  signifies  "a  declara- 
tion or  charge  in  writing,  exhibited  in  court,  particularly  against  a  ship 
or  goods,  for  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  trade  or  revenue."  Also  vessels 
captured  in  time  of  war  and  claimed  as  prizes,  are  thus  libeled.  When 
a  prize  is  brought  into  a  port,  the  captors  make  a  writing  called  lihel^ 
stating  the  facts  of  the  capture,  and  praying  that  the  property  may  be 
condemned ;  and  this  paper  is  filed  in  the  proper  court.  If  it  shall  ap- 
pear on  trial  that  the  property  captured  was  subject  to  condemnation,  it 
is  distributed  among  the  captors.] 

It  vras  maintained  by  Mr.  Baldwin,  counsel  for  the  children,  that  they 
had  been  feloniously  and  piratically  captured  in  Africa — contrary  to  the 
laws  of  Spain — consequently,  they  were  not  property,  and  therefore  the 
district  court  was  ousted  of  its  jurisdiction.  The  district  judge  had  not 
issued  his  warrant  to  take  these  individuals.  This  he  could  not  do  with- 
out first  judicially  finding  that  they  were  property.  The  warrant  issued  by 
his  honor  to  the  marshal  was  to  take  the  vessel  and  other  articles  of 
personal  property.  These  children  were  not,  and  never  could  become 
personal  property.  They  formed  a  part  of  a  number  of  persons,  who, 
born  free,  were  captured  and  reduced  to  slavery.  They  had  come  here^ 
not  as  slaves,  but  as  free ;  and  we  are  asked  first  to  make  them  slaves, 
and  then  give  them  up  to  the  Spaniards.  But  we  can  only  deliver  up 
pn-operty  ;  and  before  they  can  be  delivered  up,  they  must  be  proved  to 
hO) property.  Mr.  Staples,  associate  counsel  for  the  Africans,  said,  Montez 
had  the  hardihood  to  come  into  a  court  of  justice  in  our  free  country,  and 
in  contravention  of  our  treaty  with  Spain,  to  ask  the  surrender  of  these 
human  beings,  when  the  very  act  he  desired  us  to  countenance,  would,  by 
his  own  sovereign's  decree,  have  subjected  him  to  forfeiture  of  all  his 
goods  and  to  transportation  ;  and  he  would  himself  have  become  a  slave. 
This  was  a  case  of  felony ;  and  felony  could  not  confer  property. 

The  next  day,  a  second  writ  of  habeas  corpus  having  been  issued,  all 
the  Africans  were  before  the  court.  The  counsel  recapitulated  the  facts 
of  the  case,  and  again  denied  the  jurisdiction  of  the  district  court.  As 
a  court  of  admiralty,  it  could  do  nothing  with  them  but  as  property ; 
and  the  applicant  must  first  prove  them  to  be  property.  Some  of  them  were 
taken  on  shore  ;  these  were  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  common  law. 

As  to  the  libel  of  the  district  attorney  at  the  suit  of  the  Spanish  min- 
ister— what  had  the  minister  to  do  with  it  ?  The  parties  claimed  were 
neither  fugitives  nor  criminals.  The  district  attorney  libels  them  and 
prays  that  they  may  be  kept  in  custody,  that,  if  at  some  future  time  it 


CAPTIVES  Liberated.  725 

should  appear  tliat  they  had  been  brought  hither  illegally,  they  might  be 
delivered  up  to  the  president  to  be  sent  back  to  their  own  country.  The 
counsel  then  asked  their  discharge.  He  said  they  should  be  taken  care 
of  (as  it  was  right  they  should  be)  by  the  state  of  Connecticut. 

The  counsel  fot  the  claimants  followed  in  support  of  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  district  court ;  and  the  district  attorney  in  support  of  his  libel 
on  behalf  of  the  executive. 

The  decision  of  the  court  (Judge  Thompson)  in  relation  to  the  motion 
of  the  prisoners,'  counsel  to  discharge  the  Africans,  was  to  deny  the  rrwticm,^ 
as  the  question  before  the  court  was  simply  as  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
district  court  over  this  subject.  If  the  seizure  was  made  upon  the  high 
aeas — and  the  grand  jury  said  it  was  made  a  mile  from  the  shore — then 
the  matter  was  right — fully  before  the  court  for  this  district.  If,  as  was 
supposed  by  the  counsel  on  both  sides,  the  seizure  was  made  within  the 
district  of  New  York,  the  court  could  endeavor  to  ascertain  the  locality. 
To  pass  upon  the  question  of  property,  belonged  to  the  district  court. 
Should  either  party  be  dissatisfied  with  the  decision  of  that  court,  an  ap- 
peal could  be  taken  to  the  circuit  court,  and  afterwards  to  the  supreme 
court  of  the  United  States. 

The  court  said  the  question  now  disposed  of  had  not  been  affected  by 
the  manner  in  which  the  grand  jury  had  disposed  of  the  case  upon  the 
directions  of  the  court.  They  had  only  found  that  there  had  been  no 
criminal  offense  committed  which  was  cognizable  by  the  courts  of  the 
United  States.  Murder  committed  on  board  a  foreign  vessel  with  a 
foreign  crew  and  foreign  papers,  was  not  such  an  offense ;  but  an  offense 
against  the  laws  of  the  country  to  which  the  vessel  belonged.  But  if 
the  offense  had  been  against  the  law  of  nations,  this  court  would  have 
jurisdiction.  The  murder  of  the  captain  of  the  Amistad  was  not  a 
crime  against  the  law  of  nations. 

The  district  court  was  opened ;  and  the  judge  said  he  should  order  the 
district  attorney  to  investigate  the  facts  to  ascertain  where  the  seizure 
was  made  ;  and  then  adjourned  the  court  to  November. 

At  the  adjourned  term  of  the  court  in  November,  it  was  pleaded  in 
behalf  of  the  Africans,  that  neither  the  constitution,  laws,  or  any  treaty 
of  the  United  States,  nor  the  law  of  nations,  gave  this  court  any  juris- 
diction over  their  persons  ;  they  therefore  prayed  to  be  dismissed.  The 
counsel  for  Capt.  Gedney  denied  that  the  Africans  had  anything  to  do 
with  the  question  now  before  the  court.  It  was  a  claim  for  salvage ;  and 
the  parties  were  the  libelants  (Gedney  and  the  other  officers  and  crew  of 
the  Washington,)  and  Ruiz  and  Montez,  owners  of  the  vessel  and  cargo. 
Gedney  and  others  claimed  salvage  for  saving  the  property  of  these 
Spaniards,  who  did  not  resist  the  claim. 


726  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  district  attorney  presented  a  claim  in  behalf  of  the  United  States 
for  the  vessel,  cargo  and  negroes,  with  a  view  to  their  restoration  to  their 
owners,  who  were  Spanish  subjects,  without  hinderance  or  detention,  as 
required  by  our  treaty  with  Spain. 

The  interpreter  being  absent  and  sick,  the  court  adjourned  to  New 
Haven  in  January  next. 

In  January,  the  decision  of  Judge  Judson  was  given.  The  blacks 
who  murdered  the  captain  and  others  on  board  the  schooner,  were  set 
free.  But  if  they  had  been  whites,  they  would  have  been  tried  and 
executed  as  pirates.  The  schooner  having  been  proved  to  have  been 
taken  on  the  "  high  seas,"  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  was  established. 
The  libel  of  Gedney  and  others  had  been  properly  filed,  and  the  seizors 
were  entitled  to  salvage.  Ruiz  and  Montez  had  established  no  title  to 
the  Africans,  who  were  undoubtedly  Bozal  negroes,  or  negroes  recently 
imported  from  Africa  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  Spain.  The  demand 
of  restoration  made  by  the  Spanish  minister,  that  the  question  might  be 
tried  in  Cuba,  was  refused,  as  by  Spanish  laws  the  negroes  could  not  be 
enslaved  ;  and  therefore  they  could  not  properly  be  demanded  for  trial. 
One  of  them  a  Creole,  and  legally  a  slave,  and  wishing  to  be  returned 
to  Havana,  a  restoration  would  be  decreed  under  the  treaty  of  1795. 
These  Africans  were  to  be  delivered  to  the  president,  under  the  act  of 
1819,  to  be  transported  to  Africa. 

An  appeal  was  taken  from  the  decree  of  the  district  judge  to  the  cir- 
cuit court,  judge  Thompson  presiding,  who  affirmed  that  decree.  And 
the  government  of  the  United  States,  at  the  instance  of  the  Spanish 
minister, here  appealed  to  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States.  That 
court  affirmed  the  judgment  of  the  district  court  of  Connecticut  in  every 
respect,  except  as  to  sending  the  negroes  back  to  Africa :  they  were  dis- 
charged as  free  men. 

A  deep  interest  seems  to  have  been  taken  by  the  British  government 
in  the  case  of  these  Africans.  Their  minister  in  this  country,  Mr.  Fox, 
was  instructed  to  intercede  with  our  government  in  their  behalf;  and 
their  minister  in  Spain  was  directed  to  ask  for  their  liberty  if  they 
should  be  delivered  to  the  Spaniards  at  the  request  of  the  Spanish  minis- 
ter at  Washington,  and  should  be  sent  to  Cuba ;  and  to  urge  Spain  to 
enforce  the  laws  against  Montez  and  Ruiz  and  any  other  Spanish  sub- 
jects concerned  in  the  transaction  in  question. 

A  disposition  was  manifested  on  the  part  of  our  government  to  effect 
the  delivery  of  the  captives  to  the  Spanish  authorities,  at  Cuba,  to  be 
there  dealt  with  according  to  the  laws  of  Spain.  The  friends  of  the 
Africans  in  this  country  deprecated  such  event,  apprehending  that  the 
freedom  of  the  negroes  might  not  be  obtained  through  the  Spanish  tri- 
bunals. 


CAPTIVES    LIBERATED.  727 

On  the  10th  of  February,  1840,  probably  suspecting  unfairness  on  the 
part  of  the  administration,  a  resolution  was  offered,  requesting  the  pre- 
sident to  communicate  to  the  house  copies  of  any  demand  by  the  Spanish 
government  for  the  surrender  of  the  Africans,  and  of  the  correspon- 
dence between  the  state  department  and  the  Spanish  minister  and  the 
district  attorney  of  the  United  States  in  the  judicial  district  of  Con- 
necticut. 

On  the  20th  of  January,  1841,  while  the  question  of  the  prisoners 
was  still  pending  in  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  the  British 
minister  addressed  to  Mr.  Forsyth,  secretary  of  state,  a  letter  repre- 
senting the  interest  felt  by  his  government  in  the  case  of  the  African 
negroes,  mentioning  the  obligation  of  Spain,  by  treaty  with  Great  Britain, 
to  prohibit  the  slave  trade  from  the  30th  of  May,  1820,  and  the  mutual 
engagements  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  by  the  10th 
article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  to  use  their  endeavors  for  the  entire  aboli- 
tion of  the  slave  trade.  And  as  the  freedom  of  the  negroes  may  depend 
upon  the  action  of  the  United  States  government,  he  expresses  the  hope, 
that  the  president  would  find  himself  empowered  to  take  such  measures 
in  their  behalf,  as  should  secure  to  them  their  liberty. 

Mr.  Forsyth,  in  his  answer  of  the  1st  of  February,  says  in  substance, 
that  the  introduction  of  the  negroes  into  this  country  did  not  proceed 
from  the  wishes  or  direction  of  our  government.  The  vessels  and  the 
negroes  had  been  demanded  by  the  Spanish  minister,  and  the  grounds 
of  that  demand  were  before  the  judicial  tribunals.  He  tells  Mr.  Fox 
that  our  government  is  not  willing  to  erect  itself  into  a  tribunal  between 
Spain  and  Great  Britain;  that  he,  (Mr.  Fox,)  had  doubtless  observed 
from  the  correspondence  published  in  a  congressional  document,  that  the 
Spanish  minister  intended  to  restore  the  negroes,  should  their  delivery 
to  his  government  be  ordered,  to  the  island  of  Cuba,  to  be  placed  under 
the  protection  of  the  government  of  Spain.  There  was  the  proper  place, 
and  there  would  be  a  full  opportunity,  to  discuss  questions  arising  under 
the  Spanish  laws  and  the  treaties  of  Spain  with  Great  Britain. 

The  decision  of  the  supreme  court  was  awaited  with  deep  interest  by 
all  who  sympathized  with  the  negroes.  Mr.  Adams,  who  had  not  argued 
a  case  for  thirty  or  forty  years  before  that  court,  made  a  very  elaborate 
as  well  as  able  argument  in  their  behalf.  The  opinion  of  the  court  was 
pronounced  by  Mr.  Justice  Story,  early  in  March,  1841,  affirming  the 
decision  of  the  district  court  in  every  particular,  except  that  which 
ordered  the  negroes  to  be  delivered  to  the  president  to  be  transported 
to  Africa.  The  court  reversed  this  part  of  the  decree,  and  ordered  the 
cause  to  be  remanded  to  the  circuit  court  which  had  affirmed  the  same, 
with  directions  to  enter  in  lieu  thereof,  that  the  negroes  be  declared  free, 
and  be  discharged  from  suit. 


728  THE    AMERICAN    STAIESMAN. 

The  26tli  congress  assembled  on  the  2d  of  December,  1839;  on  or 
during  which  day,  every  member  of  the  house  of  representatives  was 
present,  except  Mr.  Thomas  Kempshall,  of  Kocbester,  N.  Y.,  who  was 
necessarily  detained  at  home.  This  unusually  full  attendance  on  the  first 
day  of  the  session  was  doubtless  caused  by  the  anxiety  of  both  parties 
in  relation  to  the  election  of  speaker.  The  gains  of  the  whigs  had  been 
such  as  to  render  it  doubtful  which  party  would  control  the  action  of  the 
house  during  this  congress.  This  doubt  was  increased  by  the  fact  that 
there  were  no  less  than  six  members  returned  whose  seats  were  to  be 
contested,  viz.  :  Mr.  Naylor,  of  Pennsylvania,  whose  seat  was  claimed 
by  Mr.  C.  J.  Ingersoll,  and  five  of  the  six  members  from  New-Jersey. 
The  returned  members  were  all  whigs.  The  contestants,  also,  were  all 
said  to  be  in  attendance. 

At  twelve  o'clock,  the  clerk  of  the  last  house,  Hugh  A.  Garland,  in 
conformity  with  the  former  practice,  commenced  calling  the  roll  of  the 
members  elect.  Having  called  the  members  from  the  New  England 
states  and  the  state  of  New  York,  and  one  of  the  memberS;,  Mr.  Ran- 
dolph, from  New  Jersey,  he  paused,  and  proposed,  if  it  were  the  pleasure 
of  the  house,  to  pass  over  the  names  of  the  five  whose  right  to  seats 
was  to  be  contested,  until  the  members  of  the  remaining  states  should 
have  been  called.  A  stormy  and  disorderly  debate  ensued,  which  con- 
tinued several  days,  during  which  time  several  propositions  were  unsuc- 
cessfully made.  It  was  insisted  by  the  opposition  members,  that,  accord- 
ing to  custom,  the  claimants  having  regular  certificates  of  election,  should 
be  admitted  to  seats  until  a  formal  investigation  could  be  had.  The 
difficulty  of  determining  upon  any  course  of  proceeding  consisted,  in  a 
great  measure,  in  there  not  having  been  a  quorum  of  members  called, 
and  in  the  undetermined  question  whether  those  who  claimed  the  con- 
tested seats  should  be  permitted  to  vote. 

Mr.  Ogden  Hofi'man,  of  New  York,  insisted  that  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  clerk  to  call  the  names  of  members  having  the  regular  legal  certifi- 
cates of  election.  He  asked  the  clerk  by  what  right  he  had  called  his 
own  (Mr.  H's)  name.  If  the  laws  of  New  Jersey  required,  as  proof  of 
a  man's  election,  a  certificate,  signed  by  the  governor,  that  he  had  been 
duly  elected,  would  the  clerk  dare  insert  in  his  roll  the  name  of  one  not 
bringing  such  certificate  ?  Let  the  law  of  New  Jersey  be  read ;  they 
had  no  right,  on  the  threshold,  to  pass  it  over  and  disregard  its  pro- 
visions— to  set  aside  or  postpone  the  claims  of  men  presenting  themselves 
as  the  representatives  of  a  sovereign  state,  and  bringing  in  their  hands 
the  legal  proofs  of  their  official  character  and  rights. 

Mr.  Halsted,  of  New  Jersey,  demanded  that  his  name  should  be 
called ;  and,  in  the  course  of  his  remarks,  he  read  that  section  of  the 


SEATS    OF    NEW    JERSEY    MEMBERS    CONTESTED.  729 

law  of  his  state  which  makes  the  governor's  certificate  the  evidence  of 
election,  which,  he  insisted,  the  clerk  was  bound  to  receive  as  prima 
facie  evidence  of  his  right  to  sit  there.  At  length  in  the  midst  of  great 
confusion,  and  after  much  altercation  with  the  clerk,  Mr.  Rhett,  of  South 
Carolina,  moved  that  Lewis  Williams,  of  North  Carolina,  the  oldest 
member  of  the  house,  be  appointed  temporary  chairman.  Mr.  Williams 
objected,  as  such  proceeding  was  out  of  form.  Mr.  Khett  then  modified 
his  motion  by  substituting  for  the  name  of  Mr.  AYilliams  that  of  John 
Quincy  Adams.  Mr.  R.  himself  put  the  question,  which  was  carried 
apparently  by  a  large  majority ;  and  Mr.  Adams  took  the  chair. 

Mr.  Wise  offered  a  resolution,  that  the  clerk  proceed  with  the  call  of 
members  in  the  usual  way,  calling  such  as  held  the  regular  and  legal 
commissions.  The  next  day,  (December  6,)  Mr.  Rhett  moved  to  lay 
the  resolution  of  Mr.  Wise  on  the  table,  with  a  view  to  enable  him  to 
offer  one,  that  the  house  proceed  to  call  the  names  of  members  whose 
right  to  seats  is  not  disputed ;  and  then,  before  a  speaker  should  be 
elected,  hear  and  determine  the  claims  to  the  contested  seats.  One  of 
the  tellers  asked  the  chair  which  of  the  ten  gentlemen  from  New  Jersey 
claiming  seats  they  were  to  admit  to  pass  between  the  tellers.  The  chair 
replied  that,  according  to  the  rule,  those  only  who  held  commissions  in 
conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  state  of  New  Jersey,  were  entitled  to 
vote.  Mr.  Vanderpoel,  of  New  York,  appealed  from  this  decision  of 
the  chair,  which  he  called  "  a  gross  act  of  usurpation."  It  was  virtually 
declaring  that  the  gentlemen  from  New  Jersey  should  vote  in  their  own 
cases,  contrary  to  the  rule  of  order  which  forbade  members  voting  on 
questions  in  the  event  of  which  they  were  immediately  and  particularly 
intrusted.  The  chair  replied  that  the  rule  did  not  apply  to  the  present 
case,  as  it  was  not  the  representatives  that  were  concerned,  but  their  con- 
stituents and  their  state. 

An  animated  debate  here  followed,  in  which  many  members  partici- 
pated, and  in  the  course  of  which  three  New  York  members,  Messrs. 
Hoffman,  Granger,  and  Vanderpoel  came  into  a  somewhat  sharp  col- 
lision; the  two  first  named  gentlemen  sustaining  the  decision  of  the 
chair,  that  the  members  entitled  to  vote  were  those  who  had  certificates 
of  election.  Mr.  Granger  referred  to  the  memorable  contest — familiar 
to  politicians  in  the  state  of  New  York — between  two  claimants  to  a 
seat  in  the  legislature,  Allen  and  Fellows,  in  1816,  the  former  having  re- 
ceived the  certificate  of  election,  and  being  allowed  the  seat  until  the 
house  was  organized  and  certain  other  party  questions  were  disposed  of. 
By  the  vote  of  this  one  member,  the  party  scaled  were  turned ;  and  after 
the  main  objects  of  the  party  had  been  effected,  the  contesting  member 
was  admitted  to  the  seat. 


730  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

On  the   lOth  of  December,  the  decision  of  the  chair  was  negatived, 

114  to  108.  The  announcement  of  the  result  created  great  confusion  in 
the  house.  Mr.  Wise,  of  the  opposition,  now  rose  and  said,  that,  as  the 
gentlemen  who  held  the  governor's  certificate  were  denied  the  right  to 
vote,  he  moved  that  the  other  claimants,  who  had  the  certificate  of  the 
secretary  of  state,  be  allowed  to  vote.  Mr.  E-hett  moved  to  lay  this 
motion  on  the  table.  Mr.  Wise  inquired  if  his  motion  was  in  order. 
Mr.  Adams  (the  chairman)  decided  that  it  was ;  and  observed  "  that  the 
state  of  New  Jersey  cannot  he  deprived  of  her  repi-esentation  in  this 
house,  and  shall  not  be,  so  long  as  I  have  a  seat  as  chairman  of  the 
meeting?'^  The  question  to  be  decided  was,  which  set  of  members 
should  be  allowed  to  vote — the  members  must  now  decide  that.  [The 
reporter  here  says  "  a  scene  of  confusion  here  followed  which  it  would 
be  diflicult  to  describe,  even  if  we  had  room."] 

By  the  previous  question,  a  vote  was  then  forced  upon  Mr.  Rhett's  motion 
to  lay  upon  the  table  Mr.  Wise's  resolution,  that  the  New  Jersey  members 
having  the  governor's  certificate  be  allowed  their  seats.     The  result  was, 

115  ayes,  114  noes,  but  the  chairman  voting  in  the  negative,  there  was 
an  equal  division,  and  the  motion  was  therefore  lost.  Mr.  Naylor  having 
voted,  Mr.  Smith,  of  Maine,  questioned  his  right  to  vote.  Mr.  N.  said 
he  had  the  governor's  certificate  of  election  and  the  people's,  and  no  man 
had  a  right  to  question  his  right  to  vote.  Additional  confusion  followed, 
which  was  terminated  by  a  motion  to  adjourn:  ayes,  116;  noes,  113; 
three  of  the  New  Jersey  claimants  and  three  of  the  certified  members 
voting  upon  the  question. 

The  next  day,  (December  11,)  Mr.  Naylor's  right  to  vote  in  organizing 
the  house,  was  decided  in  the  negative:  119  to  112;  and  the  right  of 
Mr.  Ingersoll's  negatived,  by  158  noes,  ayes,  none.  The  right  of  the 
certified  members  to  vote  was  denied,  the  question  being  taken  upon  the 
right  of  each  separately ;  a  part  of  each  set  of  the  New  Jersey  claimants 
voting.  Mr.  Wise's  resolution,  that  the  New  Jersey  members  be 
enrolled  and  take  part  in  organizing  the  house,  was  negatived:  ayes,  115; 
noes  118;  Mr.  Randolph  alone  from  New  Jersey  voting.  Mr.  Rhett 
then  proposed  a  resolution,  that  the  clerk  call  the  names  of  all  the  mem- 
bers whose  seats  were  uncontested,  and  that  the  members  thus  called 
should  be  a  quorum  to  settle  the  claims  of  members — Mr.  Naylor's  seat 
not  to  be  included  in  the  contested  seats — and  that  the  quorum  should 
decide  the  contested  elections  before  proceeding  to  the  election  of  a 
speaker. 

The  next  day,  (12th,)  the  clerk  completed  the  calling  of  the  roll  of  the 
house.  Mr.  Randolph  then  sent  to  the  clerk's  table  a  paper  which  he 
wished  to  be  read,  and  which,  after  some  opposition,  was  permitted  to 


SEATS    OF   NEW   JERSEY    MEMBERS    CONTESTED.  731 

be  done.  Mr.  Randolph  then  moved  that  this  paper — which  proved  to 
be  a  protest  of  the  excluded  claimants — be  entered  upon  the  journal  of 
the  house.  After  a  most  bitter  denunciation  of  the  paper  and  the  gentle- 
man who  presented  it,  by  Mr.  Bynum,  of  North  Carolina,  and  some  far- 
ther confused  debate,  the  question  to  enter  the  protest  upon  the  journal 
was  negatived  :  ayes,  114;  noes,  117.  After  a  variety  of  other  proceed- 
ings during  this  day  and  the  next,  a  direct  vote  was  taken  upon  a  propo* 
sition  of  Mr.  Wise,  that  the  credentials  of  the  certified  members  from 
New  Jersey  were  sufficient  to  entitle  them  to  take  their  seats  in  the 
house,  leaving  the  question  of  contested  election  to  be  afterwards  decided 
by  the  house  :  and  the  result  was,  an  equal  division,  1 1 7  to  1 1 7.  So 
the  resolution  was  lost. 

On  the  day  following,  (14th,)  after  sundry  proceedings,  the  members 
proceeded  to  the  election  of  speaker,  viva  voce,  according  to  the  rule 
adopted  the  day  before.  The  name  of  Mr.  Adams  having  been  called, 
he  answered :  "  Reserving  all  my  rights  of  objecting  hereafter  to  this 
election  as  unconstitutional  and  illegal,  I  vote  for  Jolm  BdV  A  simi- 
lar protest  was  made  by  Mr.  Wise.  Before  the  result  of  the  first  ballot 
was  announced,  the  certified  New  Jersey  members  successively  demanded, 
that  having  been' legally  returned,  their  votes  should  be  recorded  for  Mr. 
Bell ;  which,  of  course,  was  not  done.  On  this  ballot,  John  W.  Jones, 
of  Virginia  received  113  votes  :  John  Bell,  102  ;  scattering  20.  On  the 
6th  trial,  Jones  received  39;  Bell,  21 ;  Dixon  H.  Lewis,  of  Alabama, 
79  ;  Robert  M.  T.  Hunter,  of  Virginia,  63.  The  house  then  adjourned  to 
Monday,  (16th,)  when  after  five  more  ballots  had  been  taken,  Mr.  Hunter 
was  declared  elected,  having  received  119  votes  out  of  232,  and  Mr. 
Jones  55.  Mr.  Hunter,  formerly,  it  is  believed,  a  Jackson  man,  was  now 
with  the  opposition,  but  in  favor  of  the  sub-treasury.  A  clerk  was  chosen 
on  the  21st ;  and  on  the  24th,  the  president's  message  was  delivered. 

On  the  28th  of  February,  1840,  the  question  being  still  undecided,  the 
committee  on  elections  were  instructed  to  report  forthwith  which  five 
of  the  claimants  received  the  greatest  number  of  lawful  votes  of  the 
whole  state,  with  all  the  evidence  of  that  fact  in  their  possession.  [It 
will  be  perceived  by  the  reader  that  representatives  were  elected  in  New 
Jersey  by  general  ticket.]  A  report  was  accordingly  made  the  5th  of 
March,  in  favor  of  the  administration  members,  viz.  :  Philemon  Dicker- 
son,  Peter  D.  Vroom,  Daniel  B.  Ryall,  William  R.  Cooper,  and  Joseph 
Kille.  The  majority  of  the  committee  concurring  in  the  report,  were, 
Messrs.  Campbell,  of  S.  C. ;  Rives,  (Francis  E.,)  of  Virginia,  Medill,  of 
Ohio ;  Brown,  of  Tennessee  ;  and  Fisher,  of  N.  C. 

Mr.  Fillmore,  of  the  same  committee,  moved  a  resolution,  that,  as  the 
committee  had  refused  to  consider  evidence  referred  to  them,  tending  to 


732  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

show  certain  illegalities  in  the  election,  the  report  be  recommitted.  Mr. 
Petrikin,  of  Pa.,  moved  an  amendment  or  substitute  declaring  the  admin- 
istration claimants  entitled  to  take  their  seats.  After  several  days' 
debate,  (March  10,)  the  resolution  with  this  amendment  was  adopted, 
111  to  81. 

The  minority  of  the  committee,  Messrs.  Fillmore,  Botts,  of  Ya.,  Crabb, 
of  Ala.,  and  Smith,  of  Conn.,  published,  under  date  of  March  12,  an 
address  "  to  the  American  people,"  in  which  they  call  attention  to  an  ac- 
companying report,  entitled,  "  The  suppressed  report  of  the  minority  of  the 
committee  on  elections  on  the  New  Jersey  case:  presented  to  the  house  of 
representatives  on  the  10th  of  March,  1840,  and,  contrary  to  all  prece- 
dent, excluded  from  the  house,  (its  reception  and  reading  being  refused, 
with  the  ptevious  question  pending^  and  all  debate  cut  off,)  by  a  party 
vote  in  the  negative."  This  report  purports  to  set  forth  minutely  the 
facts  of  the  case,  and  the  action  of  the  committee,  and  concludes  with 
a  protest  against  what  they  "  conceive  to  be  a  most  indefensible  and 
unlawful  proceeding." 

This  address  and  the  accompanying  report  were  replied  to  in  an  address 
"  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,"  by  the  members  of  the  majority, 
as  private  individuals,  in  which  they  defend  themselves  against  the 
charges  of  the  minority,  and  vindicate  their  report.  At  a  late  period  of 
the  session,  (July,)  additional  testimony  having  been  received,  another 
report  was  made  by  the  majority  of  the  committee,  declaring  the  sitting 
members  duly  elected;  which  report  was  adopted  (July  16th):  ayes, 
102;  noes,  22;  a  large  number  of  the  opposition  members  declining  to 
vote.  Many  of  them  had  asked  to  be  excused  from  voting,  not  having 
had  the  means  of  examining  the  evidence.  It  filled  a  volume  of 
nearly  seven  hundred  pages — was  now  for  the  first  time  laid  before  the 
house — and  members  were  to  be  compelled  to  decide  on  an  important 
question  without  being  allowed  time  to  read  the  testimony  or  to  hear 
the  opposing  claimants.     Here  this  long  and  exciting  controversy  ended. 

At  the  session  of  1839-40,  the  independent  treasury  was  established. 
The  subject  was  again  presented  to  congress  by  Mr.  Van  Buren  in  his 
annual  message ;  and  a  bill  was  again  reported  by  Mr.  Wright  in  the 
senate.  Having  passed  that  body,  the  bill  was  reported  in  the  house  on 
the  26th  of  March.  The  discussion  was,  as  at  former  sessions,  quite  pro- 
tracted, and  especially  in  the  house,  where  it  was  passed,  June  30,  by  a 
vote  of  124  to  107. 

The  question  then  recurring  on  the  title,  Mr.  Cooper,  of  Pennsylvania, 
moved  to  amend  it  by  striking  out  the  present  title,  and  inserting  the 
following  :  "  A  bill  to  reduce  the  value  of  property,  the  products  of  the 
farmer,  and  the  wages  of  the  laborer ;  to  destroy  the  indebted  portion 


FLORIDA    WAR.  733 

of  the  community,  and  to  place  the  treasury  of  the  nation  in  the  hands 
of  the  president."  Mr.  Gushing,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  to  amend  the 
amendment  so  as  to  read :  "An  act  to  enable  the  public  money  to  be 
drawn  from  the  treasury  without  appropriation  made  by  law."  An  angry 
and  desultory  discussion  arose  between  Mr.  Gushing  and  others ;  and 
the  house  was  filled  with  commotion,  and  could  not  be  restored  to  order 
by  the  speaker,  but  by  the  aid  of  the  sergeant-at-arms.  The  amendments 
were  of  course  rejected.  The  title  under  which  the  bill  was  reported  was 
retained  :  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  collection,  safe-keeping,  transfer, 
and  disbursement  of  the  public  revenue." 

This  act  required  the  payment  of  all  duties,  taxes,  land  sales,  and  all 
other  government  dues,  to  be  made,  one-fourth  in  specie,  after  the  30th 
of  June,  1840,  and  an  additional  one-fourth  each  successive  year,  until 
the  whole  should  become  payable  in  specie.  It  also  provided  for  the 
necessary  rooms  for  the  treasurer,  and  vaults  and  safes  for  the  moneys, 
and  for  the  appointment  of  receivers-general ;  who,  with  all  other  officers 
receiving  public  moneys,  were  required  to  give  bonds,  with  sureties,  for 
the  faithful  discharge  of  their  duties.  It  contained  such  other  provisions 
as  were  deemed  necessary  to  secure  the  objects  expressed  in  its  title. 

The  war  with  the  Seminole  Indians  which  had  commenced  in  1835, 
had  not  yet  been  brought  to  a  termination.  This  small  tribe,  number- 
ing only  about  2000  capable  of  bearing  arms,  had  for  nearly  five  years 
baffled  the  attempts  of  our  army  to  reduce  them  to  submission.  In 
1840,  a  bill  was  reported  to  the  senate  by  Mr.  Benton,  from  the  com- 
mittee on  military  affairs,  to  provide  for  the  armed  occupation  and 
settlement  of  that  part  of  Florida  which  was  infested  by  these  maraud- 
ing bands  of  hostile  Indians.  It  was  hoped  in  this  way  to  effect  their 
extirpation,  and  thus  to  rid  the  territory  of  an  enemy  whom  the  govern- 
ment had  hitherto  been  unable  to  subdue.  This  bill  proposed  grants 
of  lapd  to  settlers,  not  exceeding  ten  thousand  men  able  to  bear  arms, 
three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  each.  The  settlements  were  to  be  in 
stations,  each  including  not  less  than  forty  nor  more  than  one  hundred 
men.     This  bill  did  not  become  a  law. 

In  the  winter  of  1839-40,  it  was  announced  that  a  pack  of  blood- 
hounds had  been  imported  from  Guba  to  scent  the  Indians,  and  thus  aid 
in  their  capture.  The  employment  of  brute  beasts  as  allies  against 
savages,  was  regarded  as  in  the  highest  degree  dishonorable  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  a  civilized  and  Ghristian  people ;  and  numerous  memorials 
remonstrating  against  the  use  of  these  animals  were  presented  to  con- 
gress. On  a  motion  by  Mr.  Buchanan  to  refer  these  petitions  to  the 
military  committee,  a  debate  arose,  in  which  Mr.  Benton  stated,  that 
this  matter  had  only  been  asserted  by  the  opposition  newspapers,  and 


734  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

that  it  ought  to  have  been  known  that  the  government  had  expressly 
repudiated  the  employment  of  bloodhounds  in  the  war.  Mr.  Lumpkin, 
of  Georgia,  thought  their  use  by  the  people  of  Florida  was  justified  by 
the  frequent  murders  and  the  destruction  of  property  committed  by  the 
Indians.  Contradictory  accounts  were  for  a  time  given  respecting  the 
efl&ciency  of  these  hounds.  After  repeated  trials,  their  use  was  aban- 
doned. 

On  the  10th  of  May,  1842,  the  senate  received  a  communication  from 
the  president,  (Mr.  Tyler,)  proposing  a  different  course  of  measures  in 
relation  to  the  Indians  in  Florida.  Their  number  had  been  reduced  by 
surrender  and  capture  to  a  few  hundred ;  less  than  one  hundred  of  whom 
were  warriors,  or  males  capable  of  bearing  arms.  The  president  thought 
the  farther  pursuit  of  these  miserable  beings  by  a  large  military  force 
as  injudicious  as  unavailing.  Their  mode  of  warfare,  their  dispersed 
condition,  and  the  smallness  of  their  numbers,  which  increased  the  diffi- 
culty of  finding  them  in  their  almost  inaccessible  hiding  places,  rendered 
any  farther  attempt  to  subdue  them  by  force  impracticable,  except  by 
the  employment  of  the  most  expensive  means.  And  coinciding  with  the 
views  of  the  commanding  officer  there,  the  governor  of  the  territory,  and 
other  persons,  he  had  determined  to  resort  to  peaceable  means,  with  the 
view  of  inducing  them  to  a  voluntary  surrender,  and  removal  to  the 
west.  He  thought  it  desirable  that  settlements  should  be  made  similar 
to  those  contemplated  by  the  bill  of  Mr,  Benton,  in  1840,  providing 
for  the  occupation  of  the  soil  of  the  frontiers  of  the  territory.  An  act 
for  this  purpose  was  accordingly  passed  at  this  session.  It  offered  to 
any  head  of  a  family  or  any  single  man  over  eighteen  years  of  age,  able 
to  bear  arms,  and  making  an  actual  settlement,  one  quarter  section  of 
land,  on  certain  conditions,  one  of  which  was  that  he  should  resia^  on 
the  same  for  four  years,  erect  a  house  fit  for  habitation,  and  clear,  inclose, 
and  cultivate  at  least  five  acres  of  land. 

The  war  may  be  considered  as  having  been  terminated  by  this  cessa- 
tion of  hostilities  on  the  part  of  the  United  States.  Only  a  few  acts 
of  violence  were  afterwards  committed ;  and  by  occasional  surrenders 
and  removal,  the  territory  was  left  in  the  peaceable  possession  of  its  white 
inhabitants.  Settlements  under  the  act  of  congress  before  mentioned, 
were  made,  in  the  meantime,  with  great  rapidity.  The  act  was  to  con- 
tinue in  force  but  one  year,  during  which  time  the  200,000  acres  granted 
by  the  government  were  all,  or  nearly  all,  taken  up. 

The  expense  of  this  war,  considering  the  very  small  number  of  the 
Indians,  was  enormous,  amounting  to  about  twenty  millions  of  dollars. 


PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION    OF    1840.  736 


CHAPTER  LX. 

PRESIDENTIAL     ELECTION     OF    1840. CLAIMS     ON     MEXICO.— -CLOSE    OP    MR. 

VAN    BUREN's    ADMINISTRATION. 

The  whig  national  nominating  convention  met  at  Harrisburg  on  the 
4th  of  December,  1B39.  James  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  presided.  On 
the  third  day,  the  6th  of  December,  the  nominations  were  made.  Of 
the  254  votes,  William  Henry  Harrison  received  148;  Henry  Clay,  90; 
and  Winfield  Scott,  16.  Mr.  Clay  was  preferred  by  a  plurality  of  the 
delegates ;  but  many  of  his  friends,  considering  him  less  available  as  a 
candidate  than  Gen.  Harrison,  consented  to  the  adoption  of  the  latter. 
John  Tyler  received  as  a  candidate  for  vice-president,  231  votes,  being 
all  that  were  cast.  The  delegates  from  Virginia,  of  whom  Mr.  Tyler 
was  one,  at  his  request,  did  not  ballot  for  vice-president.  The  delega- 
tions from  the  several  states  balloted  separately.  All  the  states  were 
represented  except  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Tennessee,  and  Arkansas. 
The  convention  adjourned  on  the  4th  day  of  its  session. 

The  democratic  convention  was  held  at  Baltimore,  the  5th  of  May, 
1840,  being  represented  by  twenty-one  states.  Mr.  Van  Buren,  as  was 
expected,  was  unanimously  nominated  for  president.  No  nomination 
for  vice-president  was  made ;  each  state  being  left  to  make  a  nomination 
for  itself 

The  abolitionists,  who  had  hitherto  voted  according  to  their  former 
party  attachments,  now  brought  into  the  field  candidates  of  their  own. 
A  meeting  of  the  Western  New  York  anti-slavery  society  was  held  at 
Warsaw  in  November,  1839,  at  which  was  discussed  the  propriety  of 
making  nominations ;  and,  although  this  was  not  among  the  objects  for 
which  the  convention  had  been  called,  the  proposition  was  adopted. 
James  G.  Birney,  of  New  York,  formerly  of  Alabama,  was  nominated 
for  president,  and  Francis  J.  Lemoyne,  of  Pennsylvania,  for  vice-presi- 
dent. 

The  presidential  canvass  of  1840  was  unusually  spirited.  There  had 
been  during  a  great  part  of  Mr.  Van  Buren's  administration,  a  pressure 
in  the  money  market ;  and  a  general  depression  in  business  affairs.  This 
state  of  things  was  ascribed  to  the  interference  of  the  government  with 
the  currency.  The  bank  of  the  United  States  had  been  destroyed  ;  and 
notwithstanding  its  capital  continued  to  be  employed,  under  a  charter 
from  the  state  of  Pennsylvania,  state  bank  capital  had  been  enormously 
increased ;  having  been  tripled  or  quadrupled.  Much  of  the  paper 
issued  by  these  banks  had  greatly  depreciated,  and  that  of  many  of  them 


736  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

had  become  worthless.  In  Mississippi,  where,  in  1830,  there  was,  be- 
sides the  branch  of  the  United  States  bank,  but  one  chartered  bank,  with 
a  capital  of  less  than  one  million  of  dollars,  in  1838,  the  chartered 
bank  capital  of  that  state  had  reached  upward  of  sixty  millions.  The 
excessive  issue  of  bank  paper  had  been  followed  by  its  natural  result,  the 
suspension  of  specie  payments,  which  was  at  this  time  still  continued  in 
some  states,  especially  in  the  western  and  south-western  states.  And 
where  suspension  had  ceased,  it  was  necessary  for  the  banks  greatly  to 
restrict  their  issues. 

But  the  whigs  found  other  causes  than  "  experiments  "  upon  the  cur- 
rency, to  which  to  attribute  the  public  distress.  The  lowest  rates  of  du- 
ties contemplated  by  the  compromise  tariff  of  1833,  had  nearly  been 
reached ;  and  for  the  want  of  adequate  protection,  domestic  manufac- 
tures had  been  to  a  great  extent  superseded  by  importations,  which  were 
draining  the  country  of  its  specie ;  the  consequences  of  which  were  the 
inability  of  the  banks  to  supply  the  business  wants  of  the  community, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  diminish  the  demand  for  labor. 

This  depressed  condition  of  the  country  contributed  essentially  to  the 
success  of  the  whig  party.     Many  who  had  approved  the  policy  of  the 
administration,  began  to  doubt  the  wisdom  of  its  measures.     A  still 
greater  number,  unable  to  either  trace  existing  evils  to  their  true  source, 
or  to  judge  intelligently  in  relation  to  any  proposed  remedy,  were  dis- 
posed to  try  a  change  of  policy,  under  the  persuasion  that  it  could  not 
well  be  for  the  worse.    True,  the  measures  of  the  administration  were  but  a 
continuation  of  the  policy  of  that  which  preceded  it ;  but,  although  the 
principles  of  the  two  administrations  were  the  same.  Gen.  Jackson  and 
Mr.  Van  Buren  were  different  persons.    Although  the  latter  was  pledged 
to  tread  in  "  the  footsteps  of  his  illustrious  predecessor,"  he  found  it 
impossible  to   carry  with  him  his  popularity.     Gen.  Jackson  was  the 
'  hero  of  two  wars ;"  Mr.  Van  Buren  had  never  in  this  way  "  exposed 
himself  to  the  enemy."     No  measure  of  statesmanship  could  afford  him 
half  the  advantage  which  his  predecessor  derived  from  the  single  victory 
of  New  Orleans.     Here,  his  competitor  had  a  vast  advantage.     He,  like 
Gen.  Jackson,  had  a  military  fame.     He,  too,  had  fought  the  Indians. 
The  battle  of  Tippecanoe,  however  inferior,  as  a  military  achievement  to 
the   battle  of   New  Orleans,  furnished  the  whigs  with  an  amount  of 
political  capital  scarcely  less  than  their  opponents  had  found  in  the 
crowning  act  of  the  military  career  of  their  former  candidate.     Log 
cabins  were  doing  for  the  whig  cause  what  had  been  done  by  hickory 
poles  in  other  contests  for  "  the  democracy" — controlling  the  votes  of 
thousands  who  want  the  disposition  or  the  capacity  for  intelligent  inves- 
tigation. • 


PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION    OF   1840.  737 

Not  tlie  least  of  the  advantages  of  the  whigs  in  this  campaign  was,  that 
their  candidate  had  been  taunted  with  having  dwelt  in  a  "  log  cabin," 
and  used  "  hard  cider"  as  a  beverage.  At  least  they  charged  upon  their 
opponents  the  attempt  thus  to  disparage  him.  Hence,  the  term  "  log 
cabin"  was  seized  upon,  and  became  the  great  talismanic  word  of  the 
party,  the  effect  of  which  all  the  arts  of  the  "  little  magician "  were 
insufficient  to  counteract.  Miniature  log  cabins  were  a  part  of  the  para- 
phernalia got  up  to  give  effect  to  the  mass  meetings,  which  were  not 
unfrequently  measured  by  acres.  These  rude  structures,  decorated  with 
^coon  skins,  were  also  erected  of  sufficient  dimensions  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  the  local  assemblages.  There  was  scarcely  a  city  or  village 
which  was  not  adorned  with  an  edifice  of  this  description.  And  the 
number  was  "  legion"  of  those  who  traced  their  conversion  to  the  "  new 
light"  emitted  from  these  political  forums. 

It  is,  however,  believed  to  be  due  to  the  American  people  to  say,  that 
thousands  who  participated  in  these  fantastic  exhibitions,  would  regret 
their  recurrence.  The  idea  of  having  recourse  to  such  measures  to  pro- 
mote an  election,  presupposes  the  lack  of  that  popular  intelligence  which 
is  the  boast  of  our  nation,  and  is  made  the  subject  of  panegyric  by  every 
public  orator.  It  is  seriously  doubted  whether  any  immediate  benefit 
secured  by  such  means  compensates  for  their  debasing  effect  upon  the 
public  mind,  or  their  reflection  upon  the  national  dignity.  In  the  pre- 
sent instance,  although  the  majorities  were  thus  doubtless  increased,  the 
same  general  result  would  have  been  attained  without  a  resort  to  the  ex- 
traordinary measures  which  appear  to  be  liable  to  the  objections  above 
mentioned. 

Mr.  Tyler,  at  an  early  period  of  this  administration,  as  will  be  seen, 
disappointed  the  expectations,  and  lost  the  confidence  of  the  party  that 
elected  him.  He  was  charged  with  a  gross  and  wanton  violation  of  his 
pledges  to  the  party,  and  of  the  principles  upon  which  he  had  been 
elected.  Of  the  grounds  of  this  charge,  his  former  political  course  may 
help  us  to  judge.  He  had  been  identified  with  the  Virginia  school  of 
politicians.  In  1824,  in  common  with  his  fellow- citizens  of  that  state, 
he  supported  Mr.  Crawford  for  president.  Preferring,  however,  Mr. 
Adams  to  Gen.  Jackson,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Clay,  approving  his 
vote  in  the  house  of  representatives  in  favor  of  Mr.  Adams.  Soon  after 
the  election  of  Mr.  Adams,  he  went  over  with  the  friends  of  Mr.  Craw- 
ford to  the  support  of  Gen.  Jackson.  He  was  in  favor  of  a  strict  con- 
struction of  the  constitution,  and  was  therefore  opposed  to  a  tariff  for 
protection,  and  to  internal  improvements  by  the  general  government,  ap- 
proving Gen.  Jackson's  vetoes  of  the  Maysville  road  bill  and  other  simi- 
lar bills.     He  opposed,  when  in  the  senate,  the  renewal  of  the  charter 

47 


738  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  the  bank  of  the  United  States.  He  favored  the  doctrine  of  the  South 
Carolina  nullifiers  in  relation  to  state  rights ;  and  turned  against  Gen. 
Jackson  for  putting  down  nullification  in  that  state.  He  opposed  the 
force  bill,  both  by  a  vehement  speech  and  by  his  vote.  He  became 
attached  to  the  Calhoun  party  in  the  senate,  who  united  with  the  whigs 
in  opposing  the  course  of  the  president  in  assuming  the  power  of  con- 
trolling the  deposit  of  the  public  moneys,  although  he  was  opposed  to 
the  bank  on  the  ground  of  its  unconstitutionality.  He  voted  for  Mr. 
Clay's  resolutions  charging  Gen.  Jackson  with  usurpation  of  power  in 
directing  the  removal  of  the  deposits.  Thus  far,  therefore,  Mr.  Tyler 
is  found  to  have  adhered  to  the  distinctive  views  of  the  party  opposed 
to  the  whigs,  having  separated  from  his  former  friends  only  on  the  sub- 
treasury  and  other  financial  questions. 

He  was  appointed  a  delegate  to  the  whig  national  convention  held  in  De- 
cember, 1839,  and  expressed,  as  is  said,  his  preference  for  Mr.  Clay.  This 
fact,  in  connection  with  subsequent  professions  or  declarations,  were  re- 
garded as  at  least  an  implied  pledge  of  support  to  the  whig  party.  The 
selection  of  a  candidate  for  vice-president  from  the  state  rights  branch  of 
the  whig  party,  was  a  matter  of  policy ;  and  as  that  officer  is  not  intrusted 
with  administrative  power,  entire  conformity  of  his  principles  with  those 
of  the  whigs  was  regarded  as  comparatively  unimportant.  Their  indif- 
ference ^^n  this  point,  however,  they  soon  had  occasion  to  regret. 

Of  the  electoral  votes  at  the  ensuing  election,  the  whig  candidates 
received  each  234.  Mr.  Van  Buren  received  60  ;  E.  M,  Johnson,  for 
vice-president,  48 ;  L.  W.  Tazewell,  of  Virginia,  1 1 ;  and  James  K. 
Polk,  1. 

The  claims  of  the  United  States  upon  Mexico  for  injuries  to  the  per- 
sons and  property  of  our  citizens,  remained  unadjusted.  A  convention 
was  made  between  the  two  governments  in  September,  1838,  by  which 
it  was  agreed  to  refer  these  claims  to  a  board  of  commissioners,  of  whom 
two  were  to  be  appointed  by  each  party ;  and  in  case  of  a  diiference  of 
opinion,  the  question  was  to  be  submitted  for  decision  to  the  king  of 
Prussia,  or  an  arbiter  to  be  appointed  by  him ;  the  ratifications  to  be 
exchanged  on  or  before  the  10th  of  February,  1839.  This  day  passed 
without  the  performance  of  this  part  of  the  obligation  on  the  part  of 
Mexico.  Reasons  were  assigned  which  were  unsatisfactory  to  the  com- 
mittee on  foreign  relations,  to  whom  this  subject  had  been  referred,  and 
who  reported  resolutions  to  the  house,  declaring  these  reasons  insuffi- 
cient ;  expressing  the  hope  that,  in  view  of  the  unreasonable  procrasti- 
nation on  the  part  of  Mexico  hitherto,  the  minister  who  was  about  to  be 
sent  to  that  country,  would  press  for  a  speedy  settlement  of  the  demands 
so  repeatedly  but  inefi'ectually  made ;  and  declaring  the  impatient  expec- 


739 

tatioii,by  the  house,  of  the  result  of  the  mission,  and  its  determination, 
if  it  should  prove  unavailing,  to  sustain  the  executive  in  any  ulterior 
measures  that  might  be  deemed  necessary. 

One  of  the  reasons  assigned  by  Mexico  for  not  presenting  to  its  con- 
gress the  convention  providing  for  the  settlement  of  claims,  was  the 
belief  that  the  king  of  Prussia  would  decline  the  office  of  arbitrator  in 
case  of  the  disagreement  of  the  commissioners.  The  president,  in  his 
next  annual  message  to  congress,  December,  1839,  considered  this  rea- 
son unsatisfactory ;  but  he  did  not  hesitate,  in  the  most  conciliatory 
spirit,  to  receive  it  in  explanation ;  and  he  had  consented  to  a  new  con- 
vention, for  which  purpose  Mr.  Ellis  had  been  directed  to  repair  to 
Mexico;  and  diplomatic  intercourse  had  been  resumed.  In  1842,  a 
treaty  was  concluded,  the  ratifications  to  be  exchanged  at  Washington, 
within  three  months  from  its  date,  if  congress  should  be  in  session ;  if 
not,  then  within  one  month  after  the  commencement  of  the  next  session. 
The  amount  awarded  to  claimants,  as  stated  by  the  president  in  his  mes- 
sage in  December,  1842,  was  $2,026,079,  leaving  a  large  amount  of 
claims,  submitted  to  the  board  too  late  for  consideration,  still  to  be 
determined.  The  first  payment,  $270,000 — the  interest  on  the  sum 
awarded — was  to  be  made  the  30th  of  April,  1843.  The  whole  was  to 
be  paid  in  five  years,  quarterly,  in  gold  and  silver,  in  the  city  of  Mexico. 

At  the  last  session  of  congress  under  Mr.  Van  Buren's  administra- 
tion, few  acts  of  great  importance  were  passed. 

A  new  issue  of  treasury  notes  was  authorized,  not  to  exceed  five  millions 
at  any  one  time  outstanding.  The  sum  of  $75,000  was  appropriated 
for  the  survey  of  that  part  of  the  north-eastern  boundary  line  which 
separates  the  states  of  Maine  and  New  Hampshire  from  the  British  pro- 
vinces. 

The  most  prominent  characteristic  of  Mr.  Van  Buren's  administra- 
tion, was  its  consummation  of  what  was  begun  by  his  predecessor — the 
separation  of  the  government  from  the  banks,  or,  as  it  has  been  termed, 
the  "  divorce  of  bank  and  state ;"  a  policy  which  existed  just  long 
enough  to  prostrate  the  party  which  brought  it  into  being;  which  expired 
with  the  elevation  of  the  opposing  party — was  revived  with  the  restora- 
tion of  "  the  democracy ;"  and  has  since  continued,  through  changes  of 
administration,  undisturbed ;  having  received  the  general  acquiescence 
of  the  popular  will,  if  not  the  positive  approval  of  the  public  judgment. 


740  I  HE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


CHAPTER  LXI. 

INAUGURATION    OF  GENERAL    HARRISON, HIS    DEATH. INAUGURATION    OF 

MR.    TYLER. EXTRA  SESSION    OF  CONGRESS. BANK  VETOES. DISSOLU- 
TION OF  THE    CABINET. 

General  Harrison  was  inaugurated  as  president  of  the  United  States, 
on  the  4th  of  March,  1841.  On  no  similar  occasion,  probably,  was 
there  ever  a  greater  concourse  of  people,  or  a  more  enthusiastic  expres- 
sion of  popular  feeling.  The  inaugural  address  was  one  of  more  than 
ordinary  length.  It  contains  a  review  of  the  leading  features  of  our 
political  system,  points  out  the  evils  which  have  grown  out  of  the 
administration  of  the  government,  and  what  he  considered  defects  in  the 
constitution. 

General  Harrison  apprehended  "  less  danger  to  our  institutions  from 
usurpation,  by  the  government,  of  power  not  granted  by  the  people,  than 
from  the  accumulation,  in  one  of  the  departments,  of  that  which  was 
assigned  to  others.  Limited  as  are  the  powers  which  have  been  granted, 
still  enough  have  been  granted  to  constitute  a  despotism,  if  concentrated 
in  one  of  the  departments.  This  danger  is  greatly  heightened,  as  it  has 
always  been  observable,  that  men  are  less  jealous  of  encroachments  of 
one  department  upon  another,  than  upon  their  own  reserved  rights." 

One  of  the  defects  of  the  constitution,  he  considered  to  be  the  eligi- 
bility of  an  individual  to  a  reelection  as  president.  One  mode  of  cor- 
rection, however,  was  in  the  power  of  every  president — the  refusing  to 
accept  the  oj05.ce  for  a  second  term. 

There  was  also  danger  to  public  liberty  "  from  a  misconstruction  of 
that  instrument  as  it  regards  the  powers  actually  given."  He  proceeds 
to  apply  this  remark  to  the  veto.  He  says  :  "I  can  not  conceive  that, 
by  fair  construction,  any  or  either  of  its  provisions  would  be  found  to 
constitute  the  president  a  part  of  the  legislative  power.  It  cannot  be 
claimed,  from  the  power  to  recommend,  since,  although  enjoined  as  a 
duty  upon  him,  it  is  a  privilege  which  he  holds  in  common  with  every 
other  citizen.  And  although  there  may  be  something  more  of  confi- 
dence in  the  propriety  of  the  measures  recommended  in  the  one  case  than 
in  the  other,  in  the  obligations  of  ultimate  decision  there  can  be  no  dif- 
ference. Ill  the  language  of  the  constitution,  '  all  the  legislative  powers' 
which  it  grants  '  are  vested  in  the  congress  of  the  United  States.'  It 
would  be  a  solecism  in  language  to  say  that  any  portion  of  these  is  not 
included  in  the  whole. 


INAUGURATION  OF  GENERAL  HARRISON.  741 

"  It  may  be  said,  indeed,  that  the  constitution  has  given  to  the  execu- 
tive the  power  to  annul  the  acts  of  the  legislative  body  by  refusing  to 
them  his  assent.  So  a  similar  power  has  necessarily  resulted  from  that 
instrument  to  the  judiciary  ;  and  yet  the  judiciary  forms  no  part  of  the 
legislature.  There  is,  it  is  true,  this  difference  between  these  grants  of 
power  :  the  executive  can  put  his  negative  upon  the  acts  of  the  legisla- 
ture, for  other  than  want  of  conformity  to  the  constitution,  while  the  judi- 
ciary can  only  declare  void  those  which  violate  that  instrument.  But  the 
decision  of  the  judiciary  is  final  in  such  a  case,  whereas,  in  every  instance 
where  the  veto  of  the  executive  is  applied,  it  may  be  overcome  by  a  vote 
of  two-thirds  of  both  houses  of  congress.  The  negative  upon  the  acts 
of  the  legislative,  by  the  executive  authority,  and  that  in  the  hands  of 
one  individual,  would  seem  to  be  an  incongruity  in  our  system.  Lite 
some  others  of  a  similar  character,  however,  it  appears  to  be  highly  expe- 
dient ;  and  if  used  only  with  the  forbearance  and  in  the  spirit  which  was 
intended  by  its  authors,  it  may  be  productive  of  great  good,  and  be 
found  one  of  the  best  safeguards  to  the  union." 

A  provision  so  apparently  repugnant  to  the  leading  democratic  prin- 
ciple, that  the  majority  should  govern,  could  not,  he  thinks,  have  been 
intended  by  the  framers  to  justify  the  exercise  of  this  power  in  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  legislation.  He  says :  "  It  is  preposterous  to  suppose 
that  a  thought  could  for  a  moment  have  been  entertained,  that  the  presi- 
dent, placed  at  the  capital,  in  the  centre  of  the  country,  could  better 
understand  the  wants  and  wishes  of  the  people,  than  their  own  immediate 
representatives,  who  spend  a  part  of  every  year  among  them,  living  with 
them,  often  laboring  with  them,  and  bound  to  them  by  the  triple  tie  of 
interests,  duty,  and  affection.  To  assist  or  control  congress,  then,  in  its 
ordinary  legislation,  could  not,  I  conceive,  have  been  the  motive  for  con- 
ferring the  veto  power  on  the  president.  This  argument  acquires  ad- 
ditional force  from  the  fact  of  its  never  having  been  thus  used  by  the 
first  six  presidents,  and.  two  of  them  were  members  of  the  convention, 
one  presiding  over  its  deliberations,  and  the  other  having  a  larger  share 
in  consummating  the  labors  of  that  august  bod}'  than  any  other  person. 
But  if  bills  were  never  returned  to  congress  by  either  of  the  presidents 
above  referred  to,  upon  the  ground  of  their  being  inexpedient,  or  not  as 
well  adapted  as  they  might  be  to  the  wants  of  the  people,  the  veto  was 
applied  upon  that  want  of  conformity  to  the  constitution,  or  because 
errors  had  been  committed  from  a  too  hasty  enactment." 

One  object  of  the  veto  power,  he  presumed,  was  to  secure  "a just 
and  equitable  action  of  the  legislature  upon  all  parts  of  the  union." 
Congress  might  favor  particular  classes  of  people,  or  local  interests. 
"  It  was  proper,  therefore,  to  provide  some  umpire,  from  whose  situation 


742  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

and  mode  of  appointment  more  independence  and  freedom  from  such 
influences  might  be  expected.  Such  a  one  was  afforded  b}'  the  executive 
department,  constituted  by  the  constitution.  A  person  elected  to  that 
high  office,  having  his  constituents  in  every  section,  state,  and  sub- 
division of  the  union,  must  consider  himself  bound  by  the  most  solemn 
sanctions,  to  guard,  protect,  and  defend,  the  rights  of  all,  and  of  every 
portion,  great  or  small,  from  the  injustice  and  oppression  of  the  rest.  I 
consider  the  veto  power,  therefore,  given  by  the  constitution  to  the  exe- 
cutive of  the  United  States,  solely  as  a  conservative  power :  to  be  used 
only,  1st,  to  protect  the  constitution  from  violation;  2dly,  the  people 
from  the  effects  of  hasty  legislation,  where  their  will  has  been  probably 
disregarded  or  not  well  understood;  and,  Srdl}^,  to  prevent  the  effects 
of  combinations  violative  of  the  rights  of  the  minorities.  In  reference 
to  the  second  of  these  objects,  I  may  observe  that  I  consider  it  the  right 
and  privilege  of  the  people  to  decide  disputed  points  of  the  constitution, 
arising  from  the  general  grant  of  power  to  congress  to  carry  into  effect 
the  powers  expressly  given.  And  I  believe,  with  Mr.  Madison,  '  that 
repeated  recognitions  under  varied  circumstances,  in  acts  of  the  legisla- 
tive, executive,  and  judicial  branches  of  the  government,  accompanied 
by  indications  in  different  modes  of  the  concurrence  of  the  general  will 
of  the  nation,  afford  to  the  president  sufficient  authority  for  his  con- 
sidering such  disputed  points  as  settled.'" 

He  adverts  to  the  power  of  the  president  "  as  the  sole  distributor  of 
all  the  patronage  of  the  government.  The  framers  of  the  constitution 
do  not  appear  to  have  anticipated  at  how  short  a  period  it  would  become 
a  formidable  instrument  to  control  the  free  operations  of  the  state  gov- 
ernments." It  is  not  difficult  to  perceive  to  whom  and  to  what  mea- 
sures the  following  extract  was  intended  to  apply  :  "  But  it  is  not  by 
the  extent  of  its  patronage,  alone,  that  the  executive  department  has  be- 
come dangerous,  but  by  the  use  which  it  appears  may  be  made  of  the 
appointing  power,  to  bring  under  its  control  the  whole  revenues  of  the 
country.  The  constitution  has  declared  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  presi- 
dent to  see  that  the  laws  are  executed,  and  it  makes  him  the  commander- 
in-chief  of  the  armies  and  navy  of  the  United  States.  If  the  opinion  of 
the  most  approved  writers  upon  that  species  of  mixed  government,  which, 
in  modern  Europe,  is  termed  'monarchy^  in  contradistinction  to  despotism, 
is  correct,  there  was  wanting  no  other  addition  to  the  powers  of  our 
chief  magistrate  to  stamp  a  monarchical  character  on  our  government, 
but  the  control  of  the  public  finances.  And  to  me  it  appears  strange 
indeed,  that  any  one  should  doubt  that  the  entire  control  which  the 
president  possesses  over  the  officers  who  have  the  custody  of  the  public 
money,  by  the  power  of  removal  with  or  without  cause,  does,  for  all 


INAUGURATION    OF    GENERAL    HARRISON.  743 

mischievous  purposes  at  least,  virtually  subject  the  treasure  also  to  his 
disposal. 

"  I  am  not  insensible  of  the  great  diflSculty  that  exists  in  devising  a 
proper  plan  for  the  safe  keeping  and  disbursement  of  the  public  revenues, 
and  I  know  the  importance  which  has  been  attached  by  men  of  great 
abilities  and  patriotism  to  the  divorce,  as  it  is  called,  of  the  treasury 
from  the  banking  institutions.  It  is  not  the  divorce  which  is  complain- 
ed of,  but  the  unhallowed  union  of  the  treasury  with  the  executive 
department  which  has  created  such  extensive  alarm.  To  this  danger  to 
our  republican  institutions,  and  that  created  by  the  influences  given  to 
the  executive  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  federal  officers,  I  pro- 
pose to  apply  all  the  remedies  which  may  be  at  my  command.  It  was 
certainly  a  great  error  in  the  framers  of  the  constitution,  not  to  have 
made  the  officer  at  the  head  of  the  treasury  department  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  the  executive.  Ho  should  at  least  have  been  removable  only 
upon  the  demand  of  the  popular  branch  of  the  legislature.  I  have  de- 
termined never  to  remove  a  secretary  of  the  treasury  without  communi- 
cating all  the  circumstances  attending  such  removal  to  both  houses  of 
congress.  *  *  *  Never,  with  my  consent,  shall  an  officer  of  the 
people,  compensated  for  his  services  out  of  their  pockets,  become  the 
pliant  instrument  of  executive  will." 

He  also  discusses  the  question  of  the  currency.  "  The  idea  of  making 
it  exclusively  metallic,  however  well  intended,  appears  to  me  to  be 
fraught  with  more  fatal  consequences  than  any  other  scheme,  having  no 
relation  to  the  personal  rights  of  the  citizen,  that  has  ever  been  devised. 
If  any  single  scheme  could  produce  the  effect  of  arresting,  at  once,  that 
mutation  of  condition  by  which  thousands  of  our  most  indigent  fellow- 
citizens,  by  their  industry  and  enterprise,  are  raised  to  the  possession 
of  wealth,  that  is  one.  If  there  is  one  measure  better  calculated  than 
another  to  produce  that  state  of  things  so  much  ^deprecated  by  all  true 
republicans,  by  which  the  rich  are  daily  adding  to  their  hoards,  and  the 
poor  are  sinking  deeper  into  penury,  it  is  an  exclusive  metallic  currency. 
Or  if  there  is  a  process  by  which  the  character  of  the  country  for  gene- 
rosity and  nobleness  of  feeling  may  be  destroyed  by  the  great  increase 
and  necessary  toleration  of  usury,  it  is  an  exclusive  metallic  currency." 

He  deprecates  the  agitation  of  the  question  of  slavery,  and  thus 
inculcates  a  spirit  of  forbearance  :  ''  Our  citizens  must  be  content  with 
the  exercise  of  the  powers  with  which  the  constitution  clothes  them. 
The  attempt  of  those  of  one  state  to  control  the  domestic  institutions 
of  another,  can  only  result  in  feelings  of  distrust  and  jealousy,  and  are 
certain  harbingers  of  disunion,  violence,  civil  war,  and  the  ultimate  de- 
struction of  our  free  institutions.     Our  confederacy  is  perfectly  illus- 


744  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

trated  by  the  terms  and  principles  governing  a  common  copartnership. 
There  a  fund  of  power  is  to  be  exercised  under  the  direction  of  the  joint 
counsels  of  the  allied  members,  but  that  which  has  been  reserved  by  the 
individuals  is  intangible  by  the  common  government,  or  the  individual 
members  composing  it.  To  attempt  it,  finds  no  support  in  the  princi- 
ples of  our  constitution.  It  should  be  our  constant  and  earnest  endeavor 
mutually  to  cultivate  a  spirit  of  concord  and  harmony  among  the  various 
parts  of  our  confederacy.  Experience  has  abundantly  taught  us  that 
the  agitation  by  citizens  of  one  part  of  the  union  of  a  subject  not  con- 
fijded  to  the  general  government,  but  exclusively  under  the  guardianship 
of  the  local  authorities,  is  productive  of  no  other  consequences  than  bit- 
terness, alienation,  discord,  and  injury  to  the  very  cause  which  is  intend- 
ed to  be  advanced.  Of  all  the  great  interests  which  appertain  to  our 
country,  that  of  union — cordial,  confiding,  fraternal  union — is  by  far  the 
most  important,  since  it  is  the  only  true  and  sure  guarantee  of  all  others." 

Passing  over  several  topics  of  the  address,  we  copy  the  following  para- 
graph: "  I  deem  the  present  occasion  sufiiciently  important  and  solemn 
to  justify  me  in  expressing  to  my  fellow-citizens  a  profound  reverence 
for  the  Christian  religion,  and  a  thorough  conviction  that  sound  morals, 
religious  liberty,  and  a  just  sense  of  religious  responsibility,  are  essen- 
tially connected  with  all  true  and  lasting  happiness ;  and  to  that  good 
Being  who  has  blessed  us  by  the  gifts  of  civil  and  religious  freedom,  who 
watched  over  and  prospered  the  labors  of  our  fathers,  and  has  hitherto 
preserved  to  us  institutions  far  exceeding  in  excellence  those  of  any 
other  people,  let  us  unite  in  fervently  commending  every  interest  of  our 
beloved  country  in  all  future  time." 

President  Harrison  made  choice  of  the  following  named  persons  as 
members  of  his  cabinet :  Daniel  "Webster,  of  Massachusetts,  secretary 
of  state;  Thomas  Ewing,  of  Ohio,  secretary  of  the  treasury;  John 
Bell,  of  Tennessee,  secretary  of  war;  George  E.  Badger,  of  North 
Carolina,  secretary  of  the  navy ;  Francis  Granger,  of  New  York,  post- 
master-general;  John  J.  Crittenden,  of  Kentucky,  attorney-general. 

The  state  of  the  currency  and  finances  being  such  as,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
president,  required  immediate  attention,  he  issued  a  proclamation  on  the 
17th  of  March,  convening  congress  on  the  last  Monday  (31st)  of  May. 

No  administration  had  a  more  auspicious  commencement  than  that  of 
president  Harrison,  and  no  other  has  had  so  brief  an  existence.  Before 
it  could  be  said  to  have  acquired  any  positive  character,  it  was  terminated. 
After  an  illness  of  eight  days,  the  new  president  died,  on  the  4th  of 
April,  at  the  executive  mansion  in  the  city  of  Washington.  In  just 
one  month  from  the  day  the  executive  duties  were  assumed,  they  passed 
unexpectedly  into  the  hands  of  an  accidental  successor.     By  virtue  of  a 


INAUGURATION    OF    MR.    TYLER.  745 

provision  of  the  constitution,  John  Tyler,  the  vice-president^  became  the 
president  of  the  United  States. 

The  inaugural  address  of  Mr.  Tyler  was  short;  the  usual  opportunity 
of  preparing  one  not  having,  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  which  had 
brought  him  into  office,  been  afforded  him.  In  regard  to  foreign  nations, 
his  policy  would  be  both  to  render  and  to  demand  justice.  As  the  ten- 
dency of  human  institutions  was  to  concentrate  power  in  the  hands  of 
a  single  man,  "  a  complete  separation  should  take  place  between  the 
sword  and  the  purse.  No  matter  where  or  how  the  public  moneys  shall 
be  deposited,  so  long  as  the  president  can  exert  the  power  of  appointing 
and  removing,  at  his  pleasure,  the  agents  selected  for  their  custody,  the 
commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy  is  in  fact  the  treasurer.  A 
permanent  and  radical  change  should  therefore  be  decreed.  *  *  * 
The  right  to  remove  from  office,  while  subjected  to  no  just  restraint,  is 
inevitably  destined  to  produce  a  spirit  of  crouching  servility  with  the 
official  corps,  which,  in  order  to  uphold  the  hand  which  feeds  them, 
would  lead  to  direct  and  active  interference  in  the  elections,  both  state 
and  federal,  thereby  subjecting  the  course  of  state  legislation  to  the  dic- 
tation of  the  chief  executive  officer,  and  making  the  will  of  that  officer 
absolute  and  supreme.  *  *  *  I  will  remove  no  incumbent  from 
office  who  has  faithfully  and  honestly  acquitted  himself  of  the  duties  of 
his  office,  except  in  cases  where  such  officer  has  been  guilty  of  an  active 
partisanship,  or  by  secret  means — the  less  manly,  and  therefore  the 
more  objectionable — has  given  his  official  influence  to  the  purposes  of 
party,  thereby  bringing  the  patronage  of  the  government  into  conflict 
with  the  freedom  of  elections." 

He  said,  a  rigid  economy  in  all  public  expenditures  should  be  observed, 
and  all  sinecures  should  be  abolished.  War  between  the  government 
and  the  currency  should  cease.  He  "  regarded  existing  enactments  as 
unwise  and  impolitic,  and  in  a  high  degree  oppressive;"  and  he  would 
"  promptly  give  his  sanction  to  any  constitutional  measure,  which,  origi- 
nating in  congress,  should  have  for  its  object  the  restoration  of  a  sound 
circulating  medium,  so  essentially  necessary  to  give  confidence  in  all  the 
transactions  of  life,  to  secure  to  industry  its  just  and  adequate  rewards, 
and  to  reestablish  the  public  prosperity.  In  deciding  upon  the  adapta- 
tion of  any  such  measure  to  the  end  proposed,  as  well  as  its  conformity 
to  the  constitution,"  he  would  "  resort  to  the  fathers  of  the  great  repub- 
lican school  for  advice  and  instruction,  to  be  drawn  from  their  sage  views 
of  our  system  of  government,  and  the  light  of  their  ever  glorious  ex- 
ample." 

No  change  in  the  cabinet  as  constituted  by  Gen.  Harrison,  was  made 
by  Mr.  Tyler. 


746  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Pursuant  to  the  proclamation  of  president  Harrison,  the  27th  congress 
assembled  in  special  session,  on  the  31st  of  May,  1841.  The  principal 
subjects  presented  in  the  message  of  the  president,  were  those  of  the 
revenue,  and  of  a  suitable  fiscal  agent,  capable  of  adding  increased  facil- 
ities in  its  collection  and  disbursement.  The  deficit  in  the  available 
funds  in  the  treasury  to  meet  the  wants  of  the  government  for  the  year, 
was  estimated  at  nearly  eleven  and  a  half  millions ;  for  which  some 
temporary  provision  was  necessary.  He  advised  congress,  in  providing 
for  the  wants  of  the  treasury,  not  to  alter  the  compromise  act  of  March, 
1833.  He  reviewed  the  course  of  the  two  preceding  administrations 
in  relation  to  the  public  moneys,  and  stated  the  efi'ects  of  that  policy. 
As  to  the  question  whether  existing  evils  would  be  remedied  by  a  na- 
tional bank,  he  expressed  no  opinion.  He  considered  Gen.  Jackson  to 
have  been  sustained  by  the  popular  vote  in  his  opposition  to  the  bank. 
The  employment  of  the  state  banks  as  fiscal  agents  had  been  abandoned  by 
its  early  advocates,  and,  he  believed,  had  also  been  condemned  by  pop- 
ular sentiment.  And,  lastly,  the  sub-treasury  had  been  condemned  in 
a  manner  too  plainly  indicated  to  admit  of  a  doubt.  He  concludes  this 
part  of  the  message  as  follows : 

"  What  is  now  to  be  regarded  as  the  judgment  of  the  American  peo- 
ple on  this  whole  subject,  I  have  no  accurate  means  of  determining  but 
by  appealing  to  their  more  immediate  representatives.  The  late  contest, 
which  terminated  in  the  election  of  General  Harrison  to  the  presidency, 
was  decided  on  principles  well  known  and  openly  declared;  and  while 
the  sub-treasury  received  in  the  result  the  most  decided  condemnation, 
yet  no  other  scheme  of  finance  seemed  to  have  been  concurred  in. 

"  To  you,  then,  who  have  come  more  directly  from  the  body  of  our 
common  constituents,  I  submit  the  entire  question,  as  best  qualified  to 
give  a  full  exposition  of  their  wishes  and  opinions.  I  shall  be  ready  to 
concur  with  you  in  the  adoption  of  such  system  as  you  may  propose, 
reserving  to  myself  the  ultimate  power  of  rejecting  any  measure  which 
may,  in  my  view  of  it,  conflict  with  the  constitution,  or  otherwise 
jeopard  the  prosperity  of  the  country — a  power  which  I  could  not  part 
with  even  if  I  would,  but  which  I  will  not  believe  any  act  of  yours  will 
call  into  requisition.     *     *     * 

"  With  the  adoption  of  a  financial  agency  of  a  satisfactory  charac- 
ter, the  hope  may  be  indulged,  that  the  country  may  once  more  return 
to  a  state  of  prosperity :  measures  auxiliary  thereto,  and  in  some 
measure  inseparably  connected  with  its  success,  will  doubtless  claim  the 
attention  of  congress.  Among  such,  a  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of 
the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  provided  such  distribution  does  not  force 
upon  congress  the  necessity  of  imposing  upon  commerce  heavier  burdens 


EXTRA    SESSION    OF    CONGRESS.  747 

than  those  contemplated  by  the  act  of  1833,  would  act  as  an  efficient 
remedial  measure,  by  being  brought  directly  in  aid  of  the  states." 

John  White,  a  whig  member  from  Kentucky,  was-  elected  speaker  of 
the  house  of  representatives.  The  election  was  made  viva  voce.  The 
vote  was  for  White,  121 ;  for  John  W.  Jones,  of  Virginia,  84  ;  scatter- 
ing 16.     There  was  also  a  whig  majority  in  the  senate. 

Bills  were  introduced  for  the  repeal  of  the  sub-treasury,  and  for  the 
incorporation  of  a  "  fiscal  bank,"  as  the  proposed  institution  was  to  be 
called.  The  former  of  these  bills  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  in  the 
senate,  by  a  vote  of  30  to  16;  and  was  afterward  passed,  (June  9,)  29 
to  18.  It  passed  the  house  on  the  9th  of  August,  134  to  87,  and 
became  a  law  by  the  approval  of  the  president  on  the  13th.  This  act 
contained  a  provision  making  it  a  felony  for  any  officer  charged  with  the 
safe-keeping,  transfer,  or  disbursement  of  the  public  revenue,  to  convert 
it  to  his  own  use ;  or  to  loan  it  with  or  without  interest ;  or  to  make  an 
investment  of  it  in  any  manner.  This  section  was  designed  to  prevent 
defalcations,  of  which  there  were  so  large  a  number,  and  for  so  very 
large  an  amount,  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Van  Buren.  [Ap- 
pendix, NoteM.] 

The  secretary  of  the  treasury,  in  his  report  accompanying  the  presi- 
dent's message,  recommended  the  establishment  of  a  bank.  The  presi- 
dent having  signified  to  some  of  his  friends  a  desire  that  the  secretary 
of  the  treasury  should  be  called  on  for  a  plan,  a  call  to  this  efiect  was 
moved  in  both  houses :  in  the  house,  on  the  3d  of  June ;  in  the  senate, 
on  the  7th.  The  report  of  the  secretary  was  accordingly  made  on  the 
12th.  With  a  view  to  free  the  proposed  bank  from  constitutional  objec- 
tion, it  was  to  be  incorporated  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  with  power 
to  establish  branches  only  with  the  assent  of  the  states.  Its  title  was 
to  be  "  The  fiscal  bank  of  the  United  States." 

In  the  senate,  that  part  of  the  message  relating  to  the  currency  and  a 
fiscal  agent  for  the  government,  was  referred  to  a  select  committee,  of 
which  Mr.  Clay  was  chairman,  who,  on  the  21st  of  June,  reported  a 
bill  based  on  the  plan  of  the  secretary.  The  leading  features  of  the  bill 
were  the  following : 

To  guard  against  the  exercise  of  any  undue  government  or  official 
influence,  or  the  imputation  of  any  unworthy  transactions,  the  parent 
bank  was  prohibited  from  making  discounts  or  loans,  except  loans  to 
the  government  authorized  by  express  law. 

The  capital  of  the  bank  was  to  be  thirty  millions,  to  be  increased,  if 
congress  should  find  it  necessary,  to  fifty  millions. 

To  guard  against  undue  expansion  of  the  currency,  the  dividends  were 
limited  to  seven  per  cent.,  the  excess,  beyond  losses  and  contingencies, 


748  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

to  be  paid  into  the  treasury.  The  debts  due  the  bank  were  not  to  exceed 
the  amount  of  the  capital  stock  paid  in,  and  75  per  cent,  thereon.  It 
was  not  to  contract  debts  exceeding  twenty-five  millions  over  and  abovc\ 
its  deposits.  A  free  examination  of  its  books  was  secured.  It  prohib- 
ited the  renewal  of  loans,  thus  confining  the  bank  to  fair  business  trans- 
actions. Discounts  or  loans  were  to  stop  whenever  its  notes  in  circula- 
tion should  exceed  three  times  the  amount  of  its  specie  in  its  vaults. 

To  protect  the  community  and  the  stockholders  against  mismanage- 
ment, loans  to  its  officers  were  forbidden.  Voting  by  proxy  was  re- 
stricted. Dealing  in  stocks,  and  all  commercial  operations  by  the  bank, 
were  prohibited.  A  majority  of  the  whole  board  of  directors  was 
necessary  to  transact  business.  Embezzlement  of  the  funds  of  the  bank 
by  any  of  its  officers  or  agents  was  made  a  punishable  ofi"ense. 

The  bill  was  under  debate  in  the  senate  until  the  28th  of  July,  when, 
after  some  amendment,  it  passed  that  body,  26  to  23.  It  passed  the 
house  of  representatives  on  the  6th  of  August,  128  to  97.  It  was 
retained  by  the  president  until  the  16th,  and  returned  with  a  veto. 
This  was  not  altogether  unexpected,  as  it  had  been  ascertained  by  pri- 
vate interviews  with  him,  that  he  was  not  satisfied  with  the  bill. 

The  following  were  the  objections  of  the  president  to  the  bill : 

It  created  a  national  bank  to  operate  per  se  over  the  union.  The 
power  of  congress  to  incorporate  such  a  bank  had  been  in  dispute  from 
the  origin  of  the  government.  He  had  for  twenty-five  years  uniformly 
proclaimed  his  opinion  to  be  against  the  exercise  of  such  a  power.  With 
a  knowledge  of  his  opinions,  the  people  had  elected  him  to  the  office  of 
vice-president.  He  had  providentially  become  president ;  he  was  sworn 
to  support  the  constitution  ;  and  it  would  be  criminal  to  give  his  sanc- 
tion to  the  bill. 

He  objected  to  its  being  made  a  bank  of  discount.  The  right  to 
discount  was  not  necessary  to  enable  the  government  to  collect  and  to 
disburse  the  public  revenue,  and  incidentally  to  regulate  the  commerce 
and  exchanges.  Local  discounts  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  business. 
To  be  free  from  constitutional  objection,  it  must  be  confined  to  dealing 
in  exchanges. 

Another  objection  was,  that  the  assent  of  the  states  was  not  suffi- 
ciently secured.  The  directors  were  required  to  establish  an  office  of 
discount  and  deposit  in  any  state  in  which  two  thousand  shares  should 
have  been  subscribed;  and  it  might  be  done  in  any  state  giving  its 
assent ;  and  such  assent  was  to  be  presumed,  if  the  state  did  not  at  the 
first  session  after  the  establishment  of  such  office,  unconditionally  declare 
its  assent  or  dissent.  And  once  established,  whatever  might  prevent  a 
state  from   speaking  within  the  time  prescribed,  its  assent  was  to  be 


BANK    VETOES.  749 

implied  ;  and  the  branch  once  established  could  not  be  withdrawn  but 
by  order  of  congress. 

The  course  of  the  president  was  regarded  by  the  whigs  as  inexplicable. 
"Whatever  may  have  been  his  former  views  in  regard  to  a  bank,  they 
were  warranted  in  inferring  that  Mr.  Ewing's  plan  was  acceptable  to 
him ;  and  there  was  no  constitutional  objection  stated  in  the  veto  that 
did  not  equally  apply  to  Mr.  Ewing's  bill.  Anxious  to  prevent  a  rup- 
ture in  the  party,  as  well  as  to  secure  to  the  country  the  benefits  of  a 
bank,  its  friends  resolved  to  prepare  a  bill  which  should  insure  the  con- 
currence of  the  president.  Not  only  was  the  message  examined,  but  a 
deputation,  consisting  of  Mr.  Berrien,  of  the  senate,  and  Mr.  Sergeant, 
of  the  house,  was  sent  to  learn  definitely  what  kind  of  a  bill  he  would 
sanction.  A  new  bill  was  prepared,  reported  in  the  house,  and  on  the 
2od  of  August  was  passed  without  alteration,  125  to  94.  It  was 
passed  in  the  senate  on  the  3d  of  September,  27  to  22.  This  bill  also 
was  negatived  by  the  president.  The  title  of  the  last  bill  was  "  An  act 
to  provide  for  the  better  collection,  safe-keeping,  and  disbursement  of 
the  public  revenue,  by  means  of  a  corporation  to  be  styled,  the  fiscal 
corporation  of  the  United  States." 

The  bill  having  been  framed  with  special  reference  to  the  wishes  of 
the  president,  and  after  a  consultation  with  him  by  a  majority  of  the 
members  of  his  cabinet,  the  second  veto  was  received  with  surprise.  It 
was  sent  to  the  house  on  the  9th  of  September.  On  the  11th,  all  the 
cabinet  officers,  except  Mr.  Webster,  sent  in  their  resignations.  Secre- 
tary Ewing,  in  his  letter  to  the  president,  gives  a  detailed  statement  of 
the  conversation  at  the  cabinet  meeting  referred  to,  from  which  it  appears 
that  the  president  had  expressed  his  approval  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Ewing  states  that  the  bill  he  reported  to  congress  had  been  made 
to  meet  the  president's  approbation.  But  in  consequence  of  the  changes 
it  had  undergone,  he  was  not  surprised  at  its  being  disapproved.  On 
the  16th,  the  president  read  to  Messrs.  Ewing  and  Bell  a  portion  of  the 
message  which  he  was  then  preparing ;  and,  in  reply  to  the  remark  of 
Mr.  Bell,  that  the  minds  of  their  friends  were  better  prepared  for  the 
veto  than  they  had  been,  he  said,  there  ought  to  be  no  difficulty  about 
it ;  he  had  indicated  in  the  message  what  kind  of  a  bank  he  would 
approve,  and  congress  might  pass  such  a  one  in  three  days. 

On  the  18th,  at  the  cabinet  meeting,  Messrs.  Crittenden  and  Granger 
only  absent,  the  president  expressed  a  wish  that  congress  would  postpone 
the  subject  until  the  next  session.  Mr,  Badger  expressed  the  belief 
that  congress  was  ready  to  take  up  the  bill  reported  by  Mr.  Ewing,  and 
pass  it  at  once.  The  president  replied  :  "  Talk  not  to  me  of  Mr.  Ewing's 
bill ;  it  contains  that  odious  feature  of  local  discounts,  which   I  have 


750  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

repudiated  in  my  message."  Mr.  Ewing  thought  the  house,  having 
ascertained  the  president's  views,  would  pass  a  bill  in  conformity  to 
them,  if  they  were  satisfied  that  it  would  answer  the  purposes  of  the 
treasury,  and  relieve  the  country.  The  president  expressed  a  wish  that 
the  cabinet  would  stand  by  him  in  this  emergency,  and  procure  the  pas- 
gage  of  a  bill  which  he  could  approve  without  inconsistency.  Having 
stated  his  objection  to  offices  of  discount  and  deposit  in  the  several 
states,  even  with  their  assent,  Mr.  Ewing  said  he  understood  him  to  be 
9f  opinion  that  the  bank  might  establish  agencies  in  the  states  to  deal 
m  bills  of  exchange  without  their  assent.  To  which  he  replied  :  '*  Yes, 
if  they  are  foreign  bills,  or  bills  drawn  in  one  state  and  payable  in 
another.  That  is  all  the  power  necessary  for  transmitting  the  public 
funds,  and  regulating  the  exchanges,  and  the  currency." 

Mr.  Webster  expressed  the  opinion  that  such  a  charter  would  answer 
the  purposes  of  the  government,  and  satisfy  the  people ;  and  he  pre- 
ferred it  to  any  other  plan  proposed,  as  it  did  not  require  the  assent  of 
the  states  to  an  institution  necessary  to  carry  on  the  fiscal  operations  of 
government.  He  examined  it  both  as  to  its  constitutionality,  and  its 
influence  on  the  currency  and  the  exchanges.  The  presidgnt  concurred 
in  these  views,  and  desired  that  such  a  bill  should  be  introduced,  and 
that  it  should  go  into  the  hands  of  some  of  his  friends  ;  and  he  assented 
to  the  selection  of  Mr.  Sergeant.  The  details  of  the  bill  were  agreed 
on ;  and  to  satisfy  the  president,  the  word  corporation  was  substituted 
for  "  bank."  Mr.  Ewing  having  suggested  that  this  would  probably  be 
made  the  subject  of  ridicule,  the  president  insisted  on  the  change,  saying 
there  was  much  in  a  name;  and  the  institution  ought  not  to  be  called  a 
bank.  At  his  request,  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Ewing  both  called  on 
Messrs.  Berrien  and  Sergeant,  with  whom  the  bill  was  arranged.  It 
was  afterward  examined  by  the  president,  and  by  him  assented  to  as  it 
finally  passed. 

Mr.  Ewing  farther  narrates  as  follows  :  "  You  asked  Mr.  Webster 
and  myself  each  to  prepare  and  present  you  an  argument  touching  the 
constitutionality  of  the  bill ;  and  before  those  arguments  could  be  pre- 
pared and  read  by  you,  you  declared,  as  I  heard  and  believe,  to  gentle- 
men, members  of  the  house,  that  you  would  cut  off  your  right  hand 
rather  than  approve  it.  After  this  new  resolution  was  taken,  you  asked 
and  earnestly  urged  the  members  of  your  cabinet  to  postpone  the  bill ; 
but  you  would  neither  give  yourself,  nor  suff'er  them  to  give,  any  assu- 
rance of  your  future  course,  in  case  of  such  postponement.  By  some 
of  us,  and  I  was  myself  one,  the  efi'ort  was  made  to  gratify  your  wishes, 
in  the  only  way  in  which  it  could  be  done  with  propriety ;  that  is,  by 
obtaining  the  general   concurrence   of  the  whig  members  of  the  two 


BANK    VETOES.  751 

Louses  in  the  postponement.  It  failed,  as  I  have  reason  to  believe, 
because  you  would  give  no  assurance  that  the  delay  was  not  sought  as  a 
means  and  occasion  for  hostile  movements.  During  this  season  of  deep 
feeling  and  earnest  exertion  upon  our  part,  while  we  were  zealously 
devoting  our  talents  and  influence  to  serve  and  to  sustain  you,  the  very 
secrets  of  our  cabinet  councils  made  their  appearance  in  an  infamous 
paper,  printed  in  a  neighboring  city,  the  columns  of  which  were  daily 
charged  with  flattery  of  yourself  and  foul  abuse  of  your  cabinet. 
All  this  I  bore;  for  I  felt  that  my  services,  so  long  as  they  could  avail, 
were  due  to  the  nation — to  that  great  and  magnanimous  people  whose 
sufi'rages  elevated  your  predecessor  to  the  station  which  you  now  fill,  and 
whose  united  voices  approved  his  act  when  he  summoned  us  around  him, 
to  be  his  counsellors.  I  felt  that  what  was  due  to  his  memory,  to  the 
injunctions  which  he  left  us  in  his  last  dying  words,  and  to  the  people, 
whose  servants  we  were,  had  not  all  been  performed  until  every  means 
was  tried,  and  every  hope  had  failed  of  carrying  out  the  true  princi- 
ples upon  which  the  mighty  movement  was  founded  that  elevated  him 
and  you  to  power. 

"  This  bill,  framed  and  fashioned  according  to  your  own  suggestions, 
in  the  initiation  of  which  I  and  another  member  of  your  cabinet  were 
made  by  you  the  agents  and  negotiators,  was  passed  by  large  majorities 
through  the  two  houses  of  congress,  and  sent  to  you,  and  you  rejected 
it.  Important  as  was  the  part  which  I  had  taken,  at  your  request,  in  the 
origination  of  this  bill,  and  deeply  as  I  was  committed  for  your  action 
upon  it,  you  never  consulted  me  on  the  subject  of  the  veto  message. 
You  did  not  even  refer  to  it  in  conversation,  and  the  first  notice  I  had 
of  its  contents  was  derived  from  rumor. 

"  And  to  me,  at  least,  you  have  done  nothing  to  wipe  away  the  per- 
sonal indignity  arising  out  of  the  act.  I  gathered,  it  is  true,  from  your 
conversation,  shortly  after  the  bill  had  passed  the  house,  that  you  had  a 
strong  purpose  to  reject  it;  but  nothing  was  said  like  softening  or 
apology  to  me,  either  in  reference  to  myself  or  to  those  with  whom  I  had 
communicated  at  your  request,  and  who  had  acted  themselves  and 
induced  the  two  houses  to  act  upon  the  faith  of  that  communication. 
And,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  veto  message  attacks  in  an  especial 
manner  the  very  provisions  which  were  inserted  at  your  request ;  and 
even  the  name  of  the  corporation,  which  was  not  only  agreed  to  by  you, 
but  especially  changed  to  meet  your  expressed  wishes,  is  made  the  sub- 
ject of  your  criticisms.     *     *     *    ^ 

"The  subject  of  a  bank  is  not  new  to  you;  it  is  more  than  twenty 
years  that  you  have  made  it  an  object  of  consideration  and  of  study y/ 
especially  in  its  connection  with  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  general 


752     -  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

government.  You,  therefore,  could  not  be,  and  you  were  not,  taken  un- 
prepared on  this  question.  The  bill  which  I  reported  to  congress,  with 
your  approbation,  at  the  commencement  of  the  session,  had  the  clause 
relating  to  agencies,  and  the  power  to  deal  in  exchanges,  as  strongly 
developed,  as  the  one  you  have  now  rejected,  and  equally  without  the 
assent  of  the  states.  You  referred  specially  and  with  approbation  to 
that  clause,  many  days  after,  in  a  conversation,  held  in  the  department 
of  state.  You  sanctioned  it  in  this  particular  bill  as  detailed  above. 
And  no  doubt  was  thrown  out  on  the  subject  by  you,  in  my  hearing,  or 
within  my  knowledge,  until  the  letter  of  Mr.  Botts  came  to  your  hands. 
Soon  after  the  reading  of  that  letter,  you  threw  out  strong  intimations 
that  you  would  veto  the  bill  if  it  were  not  postponed.  That  letter  I  did 
and  do  most  unequivocally  condemn,  but  it  did  not  affect  the  constitu- 
tionality of  the  bill,  or  justify  you  in  rejecting  it  on  that  ground." 

The  statements  of  Mr.  Ewing  were  confirmed  by  letters  from  Mr. 
Badger  and  Mr.  Bell,  the  secretaries  of  the  navy  and  of  war,  to  the 
editors  of  the  National  Intelligencer.  Mr.  Bell  is  more  full  than  Mr. 
Ewing,  upon  some  of  the  topics  discussed  at  the  cabinet  meeting  alluded 
to.  Mr.  Clay  had  expressed  the  opinion — in  which  the  members  of  the 
cabinet  probably  concurred — that  the  assent  or  dissent  of  the  states  to 
the  establishment  of  branches  in  them,  did  not  affect  the  question  of  the 
constitutionality  of  a  national  bank.  Mr.  Tyler,  however,  seemed  to 
think  otherwise;  but  he  agreed  with  them  that  if  that  objection  could 
be  avoided,  it  was  highly  desirable  that  the  institution,  being  an  agent 
of  the  general  government,  should  be  independent  of  the  will  of  the 
states.  And  he  desired  the  opinion  of  his  cabinet  upon  the  question, 
whether,  without  the  power  of  discount  and  deposit,  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  old  bank  and  the  one  proposed  was  not  sujG&cient  to  make  a 
difference  as  to  the  constitutional  question,  and  to  render  his  approval 
of  the  latter  consistent  with  his  former  expressed  opinions  on  the  sub- 
ject of  a  national  bank.  He  was  apparently  satisfied,  that  a  bank 
restricted  in  its  dealings  to  bills  of  exchange,  was  not  liable  to  the  con- 
stitutional objection.  The  privilege  of  issuing  its  own  notes,  of  deal- 
ing in  exchanges,  and  of  receiving  moneys  on  deposit,  all  appeared 
to  have  immediate  reference  to,  or  connection  with,  the  power  given  in 
the  constitution  over  commerce  between  the  states,  over  the  currency, 
and  the  necessary  fiscal  operations  of  the  government  in  the  collection, 
safe-keeping,  and  disbursement  of  the  public  revenue. 

After  all  the  material  points  had  been  disposed  of  to  the  satisfaction 
of  all  present,  he  said  he  would  not  sanction  a  bank  even  in  the  form 
agreed  on,  if  he  supposed  it  would  at  some  future  session  be  changed 
into  a  bank  of  discount,  and  asked  his  cabinet  if  they  would  stand  by 


DISSOLUTION    OF    THE    CABINET.  753 

him,  and  oppose  such  attempt  during  his  administration.     Mr.  Webster 
and  others  gave  him  all  proper  assurances  on  this  point. 

The  letter  to  which  allusion  is  made  by  Mr.  Ewing,  and  which  was 
presumed  to  have  had  great  influence  in  causing  the  veto,  was  written 
by  John  M.  Botts,  representative  of  the  Richmond  district  of  Virginia, 
addressed  to  "  Coffeehouse,  Richmond,"  postmarked  "  Washington, 
16th  August,"  and  franked  by  Mr.  Botts.  The  following  is  a  copy  of 
the  letter : 

''  August  16,  1841. 

"  Dear  Sir  :  The  president  has  finally  resolved  to  veto  the  bank  bill. 
It  will  be  sent  in  to-day  at  12  o'clock.  It  is  impossible  to  tell  precisely 
on  what  ground  it  will  be  placed.  He  has  turned  and  twisted,  and 
changed  his  ground  so  often  in  his  conversations,  that  it  is  difficult  to 
conjecture  which  of  the  absurdities  he  will  rest  his  veto  upon. 

"  In  the  last  conversation  reported,  he  said  his  only  objection  was  to 
that  provision  which  presumed  the  assent  of  the  states  when  no  opinion 
was  expressed,  and  if  that  was  struck  out,  he  would  sign  the  bill.  He 
had  no  objection  to  the  location  of  branches  by  the  directors,  in  the 
absence  of  dissent  expressed,  but  whenever  it  was  expressed,  the  power 
to  discount  promissory  notes  must  cease,  although  the  agency  might  con- 
tinue, for  the  purchase  and  sale  of  foreign  exchange.  However,  you 
will  see  the  message. 

"  Our  Captain  Tyler  is  making  a  desperate  effort  to  set  himself  up 
with  the  loco  focos,  but  he'll  be  headed  yet,  and  I  regret  to  say,  it  will 
end  badly  for  him. — He  will  be  an  object  of  execration  with  both  parties; 
with  the  one,  for  vetoing  our  bill,  which  was  bad  enough — with  the  other, 
for  signing  a  worse  one;  but  he  is  hardly  entitled  to  sympathy.  He 
has  refused  to  listen  to  the  admonition  and  entreaties  of  his  best  friends, 
and  looked  only  to  the  whisperings  of  ambitious  and  designing  mischief- 
makers  who  have  collected  around  him. 

"  The  veto  will  be  received  without  a  word,  laid  on  the  table,  and 
ordered  to  be  printed.  To-night  we  must  and  will  settle  matters,  as 
quietly  as  possible,  but  they  must  be  settled. 

"Yours,  &c.,         Jno.  M.  Botts. 

"  You'll  get  a  bank  bill,  I  think,  but  one  that  will  serve  only  to  fasten 
him,  and  to  which  no  stock  will  be  subscribed ;  and  when  he  finds  out 
that  he  is  not  wiser  in  banking  than  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  we  may 
get  a  better.  The  excitement  here  is  tremendous,  but  it  will  be  smoth- 
ered for  the  present." 

Whether  the  course  of  Mr.  Webster  in  remaining  in  the  cabinet,  or 
that  of  the  resigning  members,  evinced  the  greater  wisdom,  is  a  question 

48 


754  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

upon  which  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion.  Considered  simply  as  a 
matter  of  expediency,  the  majority  of  the  cabinet,  it  is  believed,  com- 
mitted an  error.  It  was  easy  to  foresee  the  consequences  of  the  course 
they  adopted — the  disruption  and  eventual  prostration  of  the  whig  party. 

Mr.  Webster,  writing  to  a  friend  on  the  day  of  the  resignations,  says : 
"  I  could  not  partake  in  this  movement.  It  is  supposed  to  be  justified, 
I  presume,  by  the  differences  which  have  arisen  between  the  president 
and  congress,  upon  the  means  of  establishing  a  proper  fiscal  agency,  and 
restoring  a  sound  state  of  the  currency ;  and  collateral  matters,  growing 
out  of  these  differences.  I  regret  these  differences  as  deeply  as  any  man ; 
but  I  have  not  been  able  to  see  in  what  manner  the  resignation  of  the 
cabinet  was  likely  either  to  remove  or  mitigate  the  evils  produced  by 
them.  On  the  contrary,  my  only  reliance  for  a  remedy  for  those  evils 
has  been,  and  is,  on  the  union,  conciliation  and  perseverance  of  the  whole 
whig  party,  and  I  by  no  means  despair  of  seeing  yet  accomplished,  by 
these  means,  all  that  we  desire.  It  may  render  us  more  patient  under 
disappointment  in  regard  to  one  measure,  to  recollect,  as  is  justly  stated 
by  the  president  in  his  last  message,  how  great  a  number  of  important 
measures  had  been  already  successfully  carried  through.  I  hardly  know 
when  such  a  mass  of  business  has  been  despatched  in  a  single  session  of 
congress. 

"  The  annual  winter  session,  is  now  near  at  hand ;  the  same  congress  is 
again  soon  to  assemble,  and  feeling  as  deeply  as  I  ever  did,  the  indis- 
pensable necessity  of  some  suitable  provision  for  the  keeping  of  the 
public  money,  for  aid  to  the  operations  of  the  treasury,  and  to  the  high 
public  interests  of  currency  and  exchange,  I  am  not  in  haste  to  be- 
lieve that  the  party,  which  has  now  the  predominance,  will  not,  in  all 
these  respects,  yet  fulfill  the  expectations  of  the  country.  If  it  shall 
not,  then  our  condition  is  forlorn  indeed.  But  for  one,  I  will  not  give 
up  the  hope." 

The  vacancies  in  the  cabinet  were  filled  by  the  appointment  of  Walter 
Forward,  of  Pennsylvania,  secretary  of  the  treasury ;  John  M'Lean,  of 
Ohio,  secretary  of  war ;  Abel  P.  Upshur,  secretary  of  the  navy ;  Charles 
A.  Wickliffe,  of  Kentucky,  postmaster-general ;  Hugh  S.  Legare,  of 
South  Carolina,  attorney-general.  Judge  M'Lean,  choosing  to  remain 
in  the  supreme  court,  declined  the  office  of  secretary  of  war ;  and  John 
G.  Spencer,  of  New  York,  was  in  October  appointed  to  that  office. 

On  the  1 1th  of  September,  a  meeting  of  whig  members  of  congress  was 
held  at  Washington.  Hon.  Nathan  F.  Dixon,  of  Rhode  Island,  on  the 
part  of  the  senate,  and  Hon.  Jeremiah  Morrow,  of  Ohio,  on  the  part  of 
the  house,  were  called  to  the  chair;  and  K.  W.  Rayner,  of  North  Caro- 
lina, Christopher  Morgan,  of  New  York,  and  R.  W.  Thompson,  of  In- 


MR.  TYLER  AND  THE  WHIG  PARTY.  755 

diana,  were  appointed  secretaries.  A  committee  of  three  on  the  j  art  of 
the  senate,  and  five  on  the  part  of  the  house,  was  appointed  to  prepare 
an  address  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to  be  presented  at  an  ad- 
journed meeting  on  Monday  the  13th.  The  senators  appointed  were 
Messrs.  Berrien,  of  Georgia,  Tallmadge  of  New  York,  and  Smith,  of 
Indiana;  the  representatives,  Messrs.  Everett,  of  Vermont,  Mason,  of 
Ohio,  Kennedy,  of  Maryland,  John  C.  Clark,  of  New  York,  and  Ray- 
ner,  of  North  Carolina. 

At  the  meeting  on  the  loth,  Mr.  Kennedy  reported  an  address, which 
was  unanimously  adopted  ;  and  20,000  copies  of  the  same  were  ordered 
printed.  The  address  adverted  to  the  reforms  promised  by  the  whigs ; 
in  restraining  the  executive  power  and  patronage ;  in  the  wholesome 
regulation  of  the  currency ;  and  in  the  establishment  of  an  economical 
administration  of  the  finances.  It  reviewed  what  they  had  done,  and 
the  position  into  which  the  party  had  been  thrown  by  the  president.  The 
duties  which  remained  for  them  to  do,  were,  First,  To  efi'ect  a  reduction 
of  the  executive  power,  by  a  farther  limitation  of  the  veto ;  by  restrict- 
ing the  presidential  office  to  a  single  term  ;  by  separating  the  purse  from 
the  sword,  placing  the  appointment  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  in 
congress  ;  and  by  restricting  the  power  of  dismissal  from  office.  Second, 
The  establishment  of  a  fiscal  agent  competent  to  collect,  keep,  and  disburse 
the  public  moneys,  to  restore  the  currency,  and  to  equalize  exchanges. 
Third,  The  introduction  of  economy  in  the  administration,  and  the  dis- 
continuance of  all  sinecures  and  useless  offices. 

To  efi'ect  these  objects,  the  address  enjoined  it  upon  the  party  to 
choose  no  members  of  congress  who  would  not  aid  in  their  accomplish- 
ment ;  and  to  inscribe  upon  their  flag,  "  The  will  of  the  nation  uncon- 
trolled by  the  will  of  one  man  :  one  presidential  term,  a  frugal  govern- 
ment, and  no  sub-treasury,  open  or  covert,  in  substance  or  in  fact :  no 
government  bank,  but  an  institution  capable  of  guardijig  the  people's 
treasure,  and  administering  to  the  people's  wants." 

The  course  pursued  by  Mr.  Tyler  was  almost  universally  disapproved 
by  the  whig  party.  There  were  many,  however,  who  deeply  regretted 
the  course  taken  by  congress,  as  in  their  opinion  unwise  and  inexpedient. 
Although  not  doubting  the  utility  of  a  bank,  they  believed  public  senti- 
ment had  been  too  recently  expressed  against  the  late  bank  to  render  the 
reestablishment  of  a  new  one  a  popular  measure.  The  attempt  was  con- 
sidered as  at  least  premature.  They  believed  also  that  forbearance 
toward  the  president,  even  under  abuse,  was  the  proper  course ;  and 
that  a  quarrel  might  and  ought  to  have  been  by  all  means  avoided  ; 
that,  by  the  exercise  of  a  more  conciliatory  spirit,  and  suitable  eff'orts, 
<he  cooperation  of  the  president  might  have  been  secured  in  favor  of  the 
leading  measures  proposed  by  the  whig  congress. 


756  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

As  the  chief  object  of  the  extra  session  had  been  to  consider  the  sub- 
jects of  the  finances  and  the  currency,  congress  adjourned  immediately 
after  the  bank  question  was  determined.  Several  laws,  however,  of  some 
importance  had  been  previously  passed ;  one  of  which  was  a  general 
bankrupt  law,  for  which  it  was  supposed  a  necessity  had  been  created  by 
the  numerous  failures  that  had  been  produced  by  the  recent  revulsion  in 
the  business  of  the  country. 

An  act  was  also  passed  to  distribute  among  the  states  the  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands — a  measure  which  had  for  so  many  years  been 
attempted  without  success.  The  distribution,  however,  was  subject  to 
the  condition,  that  the  duties  established  by  the  compromise  tariff  of 
1833,  were  not  to  be  raised.  If  at  any  time  congress  should  increase 
those  duties,  distribution  was  to  be  suspended  until  the  cause  of  the  sus- 
pension should  cease.  The  distribution  was  to  be  made  semi-annually, 
after  the  1st  of  January,  1842. 

An  act  was  also  passed,  authorizing  a  loan  of  twelve  millions  of 
dollars. 


CHAPTER  LXII. 

PETITION   FOR    A    DISSOLUTION    OF    THE   UNION. ATTEMPT  TO  CENSURE  MR. 

ADAMS. CENSURE    OF    MR.    GIDDINGS. 

On  the  21st  of  January,  1842,  Mr.  Adams  presented  a  petition  pur- 
porting to  be  from  a  number  of  respectable  citizens  of  Georgia,  complain- 
ing, as  a  grievance  to  them,  that  he  had  been  appointed  chairman  of  the 
committee  on  foreign  relations,  and  calling  upon  the  house  to  remedy  the 
grievance.  Claiming  the  right  to  defend  himself  against  these  petitioners, 
he  moved  the  reference  of  the  petition  to  the  committee  on  foreign 
affairs,  with  instructions  to  choose  a  chairman  if  they  should  think 
proper. 

Mr.  Habersham,  of  Georgia,  said  he  had  seen  the  paper,  and  had  told 
the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  that  he  believed  the  petition  to  be  a 
hoax.     The  subject  was  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Adams,  the  next  day,  again  claimed,  as  a  matter  of  privilege,  the 
right  of  defending  himself  from  the  charges  made  in  the  petition.  The 
speaker  being  of  opinion  that  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  had  carried 
with  it  every  thing  connected  with  the  petition,  a  motion  was  made  and 


PETITION    FOR    A    DISSOLUTION    OF    THE    UNION.  757 

adopted  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  that  motion.  Mr.  A.,  in  his  remarks, 
said  the  whole  slave-trading  representation  of  the  house  was  against  him, 
with  one  exception.  If  it  had  been  secret  before,  it  was  now  disclosed 
by  a  gentleman,  late  a  senator  from  Alabama,  in  a  letter  to  his  constitu- 
ents, [a  portion  of  which  Mr.  A.  here  read.]  The  executive  journal  of 
the  extra  session  showed,  that  appointments  of  abolitionists  had  been 
confirmed  by  votes  of  southern  whigs,  while  northern  democrats  had 
voted  against  them. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Virginia,  rose  to  a  point  of  order.  The  house  had  de- 
cided that  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  should  have  the  privilege 
of  defending  himself  against  the  charge  of  monomania,  and  he  asked  if 
he  was  doing  it.  [Cries  of  "  Yes  !  yes  !"  and  also  of  "  No,  he  is  estab- 
lishing the  fact."] 

Mr.  Adams  read  farther  from  the  letter,  which  stated  that  a  coalition 
had  been  formed  between  southern  whig  leaders  and  the  abolitionists,  as 
well  as  the  federalists  of  the  north ;  and  that  this  extraordinary  alliance 
was  not  less  indispensable  for  the  prosperity  of  the  union,  than  for  the 
safety  of  the  south.  This  letter  contained  precisely  the  same  charge  in 
substance  against  those  whom  it  called  the  abolitionists  of  the  north,  as 
this  petition  charged  against  him.  He  had  other  evidence  of  the  same 
spirit,  in  a  letter  from  a  place  called  Accomac,  (Mr.  Wise's  residence.) 
[He  then  read  portions  of  the  letter  relative  to  complaints  which  had  been 
made  against  the  "  corporal's  guard,"  the  friends  par  excellence  of  the 
president,  for  not  supporting  any  of  the  whig  measures  proposed  at  the 
extra  session ;  in  which  letter  the  question  was  asked,  what  measures 
were  meant — whether  it  was  the  abolition  movement  to  keep  the  house 
of  representatives  disorganized  until  the  21st  rule  (prohibiting  the  recep- 
tion of  anti-slavery  petitions)  was  suspended  or  abolished ;  or  whether  it 
related  to  the  constitution  of  committees  ;  so  that,  if  the  question  of  the 
black  republic  of  Hayti  was  referred,  it  went  to  a  majority  of  non-slave- 
holders.] What  committee  was  that  ?  asked  Mr.  Adams.  It  was  this 
identical  committee :  and  the  speaker  was  charged  with  a  violation  of  his 
duty  in  its  appointment.  The  feelings  of  the  writer  were  the  same  as 
those  expressed  in  this  memorial.  It  was  not  an  individual  or  personal 
feeling,  but  it  was  slaveholding,  slavetrading,  slavebreeding ;  and  the 
complaint  was  that  the  majority  of  the  committee  were  not  slaveholders. 
Mr.  Adams  had  not  finished  reading  from  the  letter,  when  the  ques- 
tion of  order  was  raised,  the  speech  arrested,  and  the  house  adjourned. 

On  the  24th  of  January,  1842,  Mr.  Adams  presented  a  petition, 
signed  by  forty-six  citizens  of  Haverhill,  Massachusetts,  for  the  adop- 
tion of  measures  peaceably  to  dissolve  the  union,  assigning  as  one  of  the 
reasons,  the  inequality  of  benefits  conferred  upon  the  different  sections, 


758  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN.  , 

one  section  being  annually  drained  to  sustain  the  views  and  course  of 
another  without  adequate  return.  He  moved  its  reference  to  a  select 
committee,  with  instructions  to  report  an  answer,  showing  the  reasons 
why  the  prayer  should  not  be  granted. 

Sundry  questions  and  motions  from  southern  members  followed  in 
rapid  succession.  Was  it  in  order  to  move  to  burn  the  petition  ?  asked 
one.  A  motion  was  made  by  another  to  lay  on  the  table  and  'print ^  that 
the  country  might  understand  its  character.  Was  it  in  order,  asked  Mr. 
Wise,  to  move  to  censure  any  member  presenting  such  a  petition  ?  By 
another  the  question  of  reception  was  raised — such  a  petition  should  not 
be  allowed  to  come  within  the  walls  of  the  house.  Another  thought  it 
ought  not  to  be  thus  lightly  passed  over.  Mr.  Gilmer,  of  Virginia, 
submitted  as  a  question  of  privilege,  the  following :  "  Resolved^  That, 
in  presenting  to  the  consideration  of  this  house  a  petition  for  the  disso- 
lution of  the  union,  the  member  from  Massachusetts  has  justly  incurred 
the  censure  of  this  house."  The  resolution  was  objected  to  as  out  of 
order.  The  speaker  decided  that,  being  a  question  of  privilege,  it  was 
in  order. 

Mr.  Adams  said  he  hoped  the  resolution  would  be  received  and  de- 
bated, desiring  the  privilege  of  again  addressing  the  house  in  his  own 
defense,  especially  as  the  gentleman  from  Yirginia  (Mr.  Gilmer)  had 
thought  proper  to  play  second  fiddle  to  his  colleague  from  Accomac, 
(Mr.  Wise.)  Mr.  Gilmer  said  he  played  second  fiddle  to  no  man.  He 
was  no  fiddler,  (cries  of  "  order,  order,")  but  was  endeavoring  to  pre- 
vent the  music  of  him  who, 

"  In  the  space  of  one  revolving  moon, 
Was  statesman,  poet,  fiddler,  and  buflfoon." 

The  next  day,  a  motion  to  lay  Mr.  Gilmer's  resolution  on  the  table 
was  negatived,  94  to  112,  Mr.  Adams  himself  voting  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  Marshall,  of  Kentucky,  then  ofi'ered  as  a  substitute  for  Mr. 
Gilmer's  resolution,  a  preamble  and  two  resolutions,  declaring  a  propo- 
sition to  the  representatives  of  the  people  to  dissolve  the  constitution 
which  they  were  sworn  to  support,  to  be  "a  high  breach  of  privilege, 
a  contempt  offered  to  the  house,  a  direct  proposition  to  each  member  to 
commit  perjury,  and  involving  necessarily  in  its  consequences  the  des- 
truction of  our  country,  and  the  crime  of  high  treason;"  that  Mr. 
Adams,  in  presenting  the  petition,  had  "offered  the  deepest  indignity  to 
the  house,  and  insult  to  the  people,"  and  would,  if  "  unrebuked  and  un- 
punished, have  disgraced  his  country  in  the  eyes  of  the  world."  It  was 
farther  resolved,  that  this  insult,  the  first  of  the  kind  ever  offered, 
deserved  expulsion  ;  but,  as  an  act  of  grace  and  mercy,  they  would  only 
-  inflict  upon  him  "  their  severest  censure,  for  the  maintenance  of  their 


ATTEMPT    TO    CENSURE    MR.    ADAMS.  759 

own  purity,  and  dignity ;  and  for  the  rest,  they  turn  him  over  to  his 
own  conscience  and  the  indignation  of  all  true  American  citizens." 

A  debate  then  ensued  which  continued,  with  little  intermission,  until 
the  7th  of  February.  The  nature  of  the  subject  of  the  resolutions, 
the  serious  charges  which  they  contained,  and  the  individual  accused, 
as  well  as  certain  incidental  topics  which  it  embraced,  imparted  to  this 
debate  a  surpassing  interest  throughout  the  country.  For  several  days 
Mr.  Marshall,  Mr.  Wise,  and  Mr.  Adams,  were  the  chief  participators. 
Mr.  Wise  undertook  to  show,  in  the  course  of  his  speeches,  that  there 
was  a  combination  of  pretended  philanthropists  of  Great  Britain  and 
the  abolitionists  of  this  country  to  overthrow  slavery  in  the  southern 
states;  and  he  charged  Mr.  Adams  with  being  an  ally  of  British  emis- 
saries in  the  furtherance  of  this  object.  Mr.  Wise  in  support  of  his 
opinion  as  to  the  existence  of  an  ''alien  English  influence"  in  this  coun- 
try, cooperating  with  that  of  American  abolitionists,  read  from  letters 
and  papers  printed  in  both  countries.  A  part  of  the  general  plan  was 
to  bring  the  elective  franchise  to  bear  upon  the  question ;  another  was 
to  memorialize  congress. 

In  relation  to  the  plan  of  memorializing,  which  had  been  "  thoroughly 
digested,"  he  said :  "  The  directions  were  very  minute,  going  down  even 
to  the  folding  and  indorsing  of  the  forms  of  memorials,  and  directing 
them  to  be  forwarded  to  the  Hon.  Seth  M.  Gates,  the  agent  of  the  aboli- 
tionists on  the  floor  of  congress.  Here,  Mr.  W.  said,  was  a  deliberately 
formed  plan  of  operation,  with  a  member  of  the  house  for  their  organ 
and  agent,  and  all  the  forms  of  petition  put  into  the  people's  mouths, 
ready  cooked  and  concocted  beforehand.  Many  of  them  were,  word  for 
word,  such  petitions  as  had  been  already  presented  to  that  house ;  one, 
indeed,  the  petition  for  the  dissolution  of  the  union,  did  not  appear  among 
them,  but  every  movement  was  planned  which  led  to  that  result.  The 
entire  train  was  carefully  and  skillfully  laid  ;  the  mine  was  already  sunk 
beneath  the  walls  of  the  constitution :  and  the  incendiary  stood  ready 
with  his  torch  prepared  to  blow  the  union  into  ten  thousand  fragments." 
Mr.  W.  referred  to  Washington's  farewell  address,  which  warned  us  of 
the  ruinous  consequences  of  arraying  the  north  against  the  south — the 
east  against  the  west. 

Mr.  Wise  said  he  should  at  the  proper  time  ask  to  be  excused  from 
voting  for  the  resolution  of  censure.  Personally,  he  had  not  censured 
him  ;  politically  he  had.  He  said  :  "  The  gentleman  was  honored,  time 
honored,  hoary — but  he  could  not  add,  with  wisdom.  The  gentleman 
had  immense  power,  the  power  of  station,  the  power  of  fame,  the  power 
of  age,  the  power  of  eloquence,  the  power  of  the  pen  ;  and  any  man  was 
greatly  mistaken  who  should  say  or  think,  that  the  gentleman  was  mad. 


760  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  gentleman  might  say  with  an  apostle,  '  I  am  not  mad,  most  noble 
Festus,'  though  he  could  not  add,  '  but  speak  forth  the  words  of  truth 
and  soberness.'  All  who  knew  him  would  say  he  was  not  mad.  In  a 
political,  not  in  a  personal  sense,  Mr.  W.  would  say,  and  with  entire 
sincerity  of  heart,  the  gentleman  was  far  more  wicked  than  weak.  A 
mischief  might  be  done  by  him.  Mr.  W.  believed  he  was  disposed  to' 
do  it,  and  would  wield  his  immense  intellectual,  moral,  and  political  power 
to  eiTect  it.  That  mischief  was  the  dissolution  of  this  union,  and  the 
agent  of  that  dissolution,  should  it  ever  be  effected,  Mr.  W.  did  in  his 
heart  believe,  would  be  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts.  Governed 
by  his  reputa,tion,  by  his  habits,  by  all  considerations  arising  from 
the  belief  of  personal  wrongs,  his  passions  were  roused,  and  his  resent- 
ment and  his  vengeance  would  be  wreaked  on  the  objects  of  his  hatred, 
if  he  could  reach  them.  If  this  state  of  mind  were  monomania,  then  it 
was  hereditary  ;  no  matter  what  might  be  its  cause,  it  was  dangerous — 
deadly.  The  gentleman  was  astute  in  design,  obstinate  and  zealous  in 
power,  and  terrible  in  action,  and  an  instrument  well  fitted  to  dissolve 
the  union. 

Mr.  Adams  questioned  the  right  of  the  house  to  entertain  the  resolu- 
tions of  Mr.  Marshall,  because  they  charged  him  with  crimes  of  which 
the  house  had  no  jurisdiction  ;  and  because,  if  it  entertained  the  juris- 
diction, it  deprived  him  of  rights  secured  to  him  by  the  constitution.  All 
that  the  house  could  try  him  for,  was  a  contempt  of  the  house,  under 
the  resolution  of  Mr.  Gilmer.  "But,"  said  Mr.  A.,  "  there  was  a  trial 
in  this  house,  about  four  or  five  years  ago,  of  a  member  of  the  house  for 
crimes.  [Mr.  Wise  had  had  some  connection  with  the  duel  between  Messrs. 
Graves  and  Cilley,  in  which  the  latter  was  killed.]  There  came  into 
this  house  then  a  man  with  his  hands  and  face  dripping  with  the  blood 
of  murder,  the  blotches  of  which  were  yet  hanging  upon  him  ;  and  the 
question  was  put,  upon  the  proposition  of  those  very  democrats  to  whom 
he  has  this  day  rendered  the  tribute  and  homage  of  his  thanks,  that  he 
should  be  tried  by  this  house  for  that  crime,  the  crime  of  murder.  *  *  * 
I  opposed  the  trial  of  that  crime  by  this  house.  *  *  *  I  was  willing 
that  the  parties  to  that  atrocious  crime  should  be  sent  to  their 
natural  judges,  to  have  an  impartial  trial ;  .  .  .  and  it  is  very  probable 
that  I  saved  that  blood-stained  man  from  the  censure  of  the  house  at 
that  time." 

Mr.  Wise,  interrupting  Mr.  Adams,  inquired  of  the  speaker  whether 
his  character  or  conduct  was  involved  in  the  issue  before  the  house,  and 
whether  it  was  in  order  to  charge  him  with  the  crime  of  murder;  a 
charge  made  by  a  man  who  had  at  the  time  defended  him  from  the 
charge  on  that  floor ;  and  who  had,  as  he  was  informed  by  one  of  Mr 


ATTEMPT    TO    CEJ^SURE    MR.  ADAMS.  761 

A's.  own  colleagues,  defended  him  before  thousands  of  people  in  Massa- 
chusetts. 

Mr.  Adams  said  he  never  had  defended  the  man  on  the  merits  of  the 
ease ;  and  never  did  "believe  but  what  he  was  the  guilty  man,  and  that 
the  man  who  pulled  the  trigger  was  but  an  instrument  in  his  hands.  He 
repeated,  that  the  house  had  no  power  to  tr}^  and  punish  him  for  the 
crimes  charged  against  him.  The  constitution  provides,  that  "  in  all 
criminal  prosecutions  the  accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  of  a  speedy  and 
public  trial  by  an  impartial  jury."  The  house  was  not  an  impartial  tri- 
bunal. "  I  wish,"  said  Mr.  A.,  "  to  speak  of  the  slaveholders  of  this 
house  and  of  the  union  with  respect.  There  are  three  classes  of  persons 
included  in  the  slave  interest  as  representatives  here.  As  to  the  slave- 
holder, I  have  nothing  to  say  against  him,  except  that  if  I  am  to  be 
tried  by  him,  I  shall  not  have  an  impartial  trial.  I  challenge  him  for 
partiality — for  pre-adjudication  upon  this  question,  as  a  question  of  con- 
tempt, which  I  repeat,  is  the  only  charge  on  which  I  can  be  made  to 
answer  here.  I  say  he  is  not  impartial.  Every  slaveholder  has  not  only 
an  interest,  but  the  most  sordid  of  all  interests — a  personal,  pecuniary 
interest — which  will  govern  him.  I  come  from  a  portion  of  the  country 
where  slavery  is  known  only  by  name ;  I  come  from  a  soil  that  bears  not 
the  foot  of  a  slave  upon  it.  I  represent  here  the  descendants  of  Bed- 
ford, and  Win  slow,  and  Carver,  and  Alden — the  first  who  alighted  on 
the  rock  of  Plymouth.  And  am  I,  the  representative  of  the  descendants 
of  these  men — of  the  free  people  of  the  state  of  Massachusetts,  that  bears 
not  a  slave  upon  it — am  I  to  come  here  and  be  tried  for  high  treason  be- 
cause I  presented  a  petition — a  petition — to  this  house,  and  because  the 
fancy  or  imagination  of  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  supposes  that 
there  was  anti-slavery  or  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  it  ?  The  gentleman 
charges  me  with  subornation  of  perjury  and  of  high  treason,  and  he  calls 
upon  this  house,  as  a  matter  of  mercy  and  grace^  not  to  expel  me  for 
these  crimes,  but  to  inflict  upon  me  the  severest  censure  they  can  ;  and 
to  decide  upon  that,  there  are  one  hundred  members  of  this  house  who 
are  slaveholders.  Is  any  one  of  them  impartial  ?  No.  I  trust  they 
will  not  consider  themselves  as  impartial  men  ;  I  trust  that  many  of 
them  will  have  those  qualms  of  conscience  which  the  gentleman  from 
Accomac  (Mr.  Wise)  assigns  as  his  reason  for  being  excused,  and  that 
they  will  not  vote  upon  a  question  on  which  their  personal,  pecuniary, 
and  most  sordid  interests  are  at  stake." 

Mr.  Underwood,  of  Kentucky,  also  maintained  that  the  house  was  not 
the  proper  tribunal  before  which  Mr.  A.,  if  guilty  of  the  crimes  alleged, 
ought  to  be  arraigned.  He  defended  the  right  of  petition.  He  believed 
where  there  was  no  power  to  grant  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners,  there 


762  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

was  DO  right  to  petition.  But  he  had  voted  against  the  21st  rule,  because 
bj  that  petitioners  were  excluded  who  had  a  right  to  be  heard.  As  a 
slaveholder,  he  had  differed  from  his  brethren  in  reference  to  the  whole 
gag  proceeding.  In  reference  to  all  gag. rules,  he  said,  away  with  them. 
Let  those  who  wish  discuss  this  topic  as  much  as  they  pleased.  He 
attempted  to  show  that  the  proceeding  against  Mr.  Adams  was  to  pun- 
ish him  for  an  imputed  motive.  What  had  he  been  guilty  of?  Had  he 
sanctioned  the  petition  ?  How  could  they  judge  his  motive  ?  Nor  had 
he  violated  the  rules  of  order.  He  had  simply  presented  a  petition ; 
and  they  were  attempting  to  punish  him  for  the  manner  in  which  he  had 
considered  it  his  duty  to  represent  a  portion  of  the  people  of  Massachu- 
setts. He  told  gentlemen  to  beware  how  they  put  it  into  the  power  of 
the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  to  go  home  and  tell  his  constituents 
that  he  was  a  martyr  to  the  right  of  petition. 

Mr.  Botts  also  defended  Mr.  Adams.  He  did  not  approve  all  that 
he  had  said  on  that  floor.  But  he  would  not  wound  the  feelings  of  that 
venerable  gentleman.  He  believed  he  had  expressed  many  sentiments 
in  the  irritability  of  the  weight  of  years  that  hung  on  him,  which  his 
own  calm  reflection  would  condemn.  There  was  enough  passing  under 
his  immediate  observation  to  provoke  the  gentleman,  and  if  he  might 
use  the  expression,  to  "bedevil"  him.  But  what  was  the  offense  with 
which  he  stood  charged  ?  He  had  presented  a  petition ;  and  he  had 
asked  permission  to  present  a  remonstrance,  and  appeal  to  the  petition- 
ers against  the  folly  of  their  course.  This  was  not  the  first  time  the 
house  had  heard  of  the  dissolution  of  the  union.  A  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina,  now  a  member  of  this  body,  (Mr.  Rhett,)  had  three  or 
four  years  ago  actually  drawn  up  a  resolution,  asking  congress  to  appoint 
a  committee,  to  consist  of  one  member  from  each  state,  to  devise  measures 
for  the  dissolution  of  the  union.  [This  called  out  Mr.  Rhett  in  expla- 
nation. It  was  not  his  wish  to  dissolve  the  union;  he  intended  it  as  an 
amendment  to  a  motion  to  refer  with  instructions  to  report  a  bill  for 
abolishing  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  He  expected  it  to  be 
laid  on  the  table  with  the  original  motion.  His  design  was  to  place 
before  congress  and  the  people  what  he  believed  to  be  the  true  issue 
upon  this  great  and  vital  question.  The  resolution  proposed  a  commit- 
tee of  two  from  each  state.]  It  was,  said  Mr.  Botts,  not  only  the  doc- 
trine of  the  gentleman,  but  of  the  majority  of  his  state.  They  held 
that  a  state  had  a  right  to  secede  from  the  union.  If  one  state  had 
such  right,  others  had. 

Mr.  B.  considered  this  affair  a  great  farce — a  storm  in  a  tea-pot. 
Talk  of  censuring  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  !  Look  at  the 
other  end  of  this  avenue.     A  man  at  the  head  of  the  right  arm  of  the 


ATTEMPT    TO    CENSURE    MR.    ADAMS.  763 

defense  of  this  nation — the  secretary  of  the  navy,  (Mr.  Upshur,)  the  last 
time  he  had  had  conversation  with  him,  was  an  open,  avowed  advocate 
of  the  immediate  dissolution  of  the  union.  [Mr.  Wise  :  I  deny  it.]  Mr. 
B.  repeated  the  declaration,  and  said,  when  the  secretary  denied  it,  he 
would  undertake  to  prove  his  statement.  If  there  were  to  be  any  charges 
for  high  treason,  the  secretary  of  the  navy  should  be  put  on  his  trial. 

Mr.  Arnold,  of  Tennessee,  spoke  at  length  in  opposition  to  the  reso- 
lutions, and  in  defense  of  Mr.  Adams.  He  could  have  no  possible 
motive  for  desiring  the  dissolution  of  the  union.  He  had  presented 
this  petition,  because  he  wanted,  as  the  last  and  most  glorious  act  of  a 
long  life,  to  send  forth,  in  these  times  of  general  confusion  and  political 
degeneracy,  a  paper  with  healing  in  its  wings — a  report  adverse  to  the 
prayer  of  the  petition,  and  which  should  state,  in  a  luminous  and  con- 
vincing manner,  all  the  strong  arguments  in  favor  of  union.  He  would 
like  to  see  such  a  paper  from  the  able  pen  of  that  venerable  patriot.  It 
would  dissipate  all  doubts  as  to  the  purity  and  patriotism  of  its  author. 
"  But,"  continued  Mr.  Arnold,  '^  for  the  crime  of  presenting  a  petition 
with  such  an  object  in  view,  the  house  was  to  put  on  record  against  him 
a  charge  of  aiding  in  high  treason,  and  in  suborning  the  members  of 
that  house  to  the  commission  of  perjury ;  and  he  was  to  consider  it  as 
a  great  favor  that  the  house  did  not  expel  him,  but  contented  itself 
with  giving  him  a  reprimand.  Mr.  A.  should  like  to  witness  the  spec- 
tacle. He  should  like  to  see  that  gentleman  standing  at  the  bar,  with 
his  palsied  hand,  his  bare  head,  and  whitened  locks,  to  be  rebuked  by 
the  speaker,  comparatively  a  mere  boy,  after  having  been  visited  with' 
the  vituperation  and  vindictive  persecution  of  another,  as  much  a  boy 
in  comparison.  What  a  spectacle  !  Mr.  A.  turned  from  the  thought 
with  loathing  and  disgust,  and  so  would  the  nation.  So  far  from  help- 
ing the  cause  of  the  south,  it  would  kindle  up  against  her  a  blaze  high 
as  the  very  heavens.  He  was  against  it — utterly  and  totally  against  it 
— from  principle  and  from  policy  too." 

Mr.  Saltonstall,  of  Massachusetts,  gave  a  history  of  the  rise  and 
progress  of  the  idea  of  dissolving  the  union,  beginning  with  the  various 
threats  from  the  southern  portion  of  the  union — from  those  opposed  to 
a  tariff,  from  the  nullification  party,  &c.  This  petition  was  from  his 
own  native  town,  and  he  felt  much  surprised  and  distressed  at  the  cir- 
cumstance. He  then  went  into  a  vigorous  and  eloquent  defense  of  his 
venerable  colleague  from  the  numerous  and  violent  charges  made  against 
him  in  the  long  speech  of  Mr.  Wise. 

Several  of  the  last  days  of  the  debate  were  nominally  occupied  by 
Mr.  Adams  in  his  defense.  It  would  seem,  however,  from  the  proceed- 
ings, that  quite  as  much  time  was  taken  up  by  others  as  himself    There 


764  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

were  frequent  interruptions,  explanations,  motions,  and  incidental  ques 
tions,  which  served  to  protract  the  defense. 

Mr.  Adams  called  attention  to  the  combination  formed  against  him. 
He  spoke  first  of  the  "  coalition"  between  Mr.  Gilmer  and  Mr.  Mar- 
shall, both  of  whom  had  introduced  resolutions  of  accusation  against 
him ;  so  that  if  acquitted  on  the  charge  of  the  latter,  he  would  have  to 
defend  himself  against  those  of  the  former.  This  coalition  was  pointed 
against  one  single  individual,  a  member  of  this  house,  charged  with 
half  a  dozen  capital  crimes ;  and  this  house  was  called  upon  to  censure 
him  because  he  had  presented  a  petition.  In  what  part  of  the  consti- 
tution was  this  declared  a  crime  ?  He  would  like  the  gentleman  from 
Kentucky  to  look  into  his  deep  researches  of  law,  to  point  out  the  law 
which  made  it  a  crime  to  present  a  petition,  lead  to  what  it  might.  In 
the  first  place,  the  gentleman  had  made  the  law ;  he  had  then  gone  on 
and  accused  an  associate  member  of  violating  it — to  sit  as  a  judge  upon 
him,  and  then  turn  executioner.  And  to  crown  all,  he  had  declared 
that  it  was  a  great  mercy  and  favor  that  the  punishment  was  not  much 
more  severe  !     The  report  of  the  speech  proceeds  as  follows : 

*'  He  had  spoken  of  the  extraordinary  position  of  the  gentleman  from 
Kentucky  combined  with  the  chief  of  the  Tyler  party,  heretofore  called 
the  corporal's  guard,  but  who,  Mr.  A.  should  think,  was  the  field-mar- 
shal of  the  armies  of  the  present  administration.  "When  he  saw  that 
combination  in  the  first  instance,  he  could  not  help  asking,  "What  is 
this  ?  Misery,  it  was  said,  makes  strange  bed-fellows.  And  he  thought 
to  himself,  was  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  in  such  misery  that  he 
was  compelled  to  seek  such  companions ?  (Laughter.)  Then  came  the 
Georgia  whigs,  who,  after  endeavoring  to  produce  an  impression  unfavor- 
able to  him  for  having  presented  a  petition,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a 
hoax,  had  all  gone  on  voting  against  him,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing 
censure  upon  him. 

"  The  third  part  of  this  combination  was  a  large  portion  of  the  Vir- 
ginia whigs,  who  were  neither  Tylerites  nor  Kentuckians.  And  then,  the 
great  democracy  of  the  free  states — the  auxiliaries  of  the  "  peculiar  insti- 
tution." (Laughter.)  This  was  a  combination  of  parties  he  was  called 
to  meet  in  order  to  maintain  his  right  as  a  member  of  this  house,  to  pre- 
sent petitions  complaining  of  grievances.  A  very  strange  composi- 
tion!     *     *     * 

"  He,  Mr.  A.,  hoped  his  southern  confederates  would  lay  it  to  their 
hearts,  that  they  should  have  no  more  such  resolutions  as  were  prepared 
by  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  (Mr.  Rhett,)  and  kept  in  his 
drawer  to  be  presented  to  this  house.  He  should  have  hoped  that,  out 
of  mere  sympathy,  the  gentleman,  if  he  had  thought  him,  (Mr.  A.,) 


ATTEMPT    TO    CENSURE    MR.    ADAMS.  765 

guilty  of  the  crime  of  perjury  or  high  treason,  as  he  would  be,  necessar- 
ily included  in  it,  would  have  given  him,  (Mr.  A.,)  the  benefit  of  his  vote 
on  this  occasion.  (A  laugh.)  But  no,  he  was  a  part  of  the  party.  He 
now  voted  that  he  (Mr.  A.)  was  guilty  of  subornation  of  perjury  or  high 
treason  for  presenting  a  petition  exactly  agreeing  with  his  views !  (A 
laugh.)  That  gentleman  and  the  rest  of  the  representatives  from  South 
Carolina — that  land  of  nullification,  against  whom  Andrew  Jackson  him- 
self was  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  issuing  a  proclamation  threatening 
them  with  the  second  section  if  they  continued  in  it — here  was  the  whole 
representation  from  that  state,  ready  to  indorse  the  charges  of  the 
gentleman  from  Kentucky,  of  high  treason,  because  forty-five  of  his  fel- 
low-citizens thought  on  the  particular  points  of  the  dissolution  of  the 
union  just  as  they  did  !" 

Mr.  Adams  demanded  that,  before  the  house  came  to  the  conclusion 
on  the  motives  assumed  in  this  charge,  they  should  send  him  out  to  be 
tried  before  a  tribunal  of  the  country.  Then  he  should  have  the  benefit 
secured  by  the  constitution.  And  he  wanted,  in  that  case,  to  have  two 
or  three  calls  made  on  the  departments  for  information  necessary  for  his 
defense ;  and  for  this  purpose  he  sent  several  resolutions  to  the  chair. 
The  first  of  these  resolutions  requested  the  president  to  communicate 
copies  of  the  correspondence  relating  to  an  act  of  South  Carolina  direct- 
ing the  imprisonment  of  colored  persons  arriving  from  abroad  in  the  ports 
of  that  state ;  also  copies  of  the  act  or  acts,  and  of  any  ojQ&cial  opinions 
given  by  judge  Johnson  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  said  acts.  [The 
act  here  referred  to,  subjects  any  colored  person  landing  from  a  vessel  in 
any  port  of  South  Carolina,  to  be  arrested  and  imprisoned,  and  in  case 
of  inability  to  pay  the  costs  incurred  by  such  imprisonment,  to  be  sold 
for  the  same  as  a  slave.  It  will  be  recollected  that  the  honorable  Sam- 
uel Hoar,  of  Massachusetts,  was  sent  by  the  authorities  of  that  state  to 
South  Carolina  to  take  measures  to  test  the  constitutionality  of  that  law 
in  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States ;  and  that  while  there,  he  was 
threatened  with  violence,  and  was  compelled  to  flee  from  the  state  for  his 
personal  safety.]  One  of  the  other  resolutions  called  for  a  copy  of  any 
letter  or  letters  from  the  president  to  a  certain^  member  of  the  house, 
relating  to  the  rule  of  the  house  excluding  from  reception  anti-slavery 
petitions,  or  to  any  agency  of  the  said  member  in  introducing  the  rule. 
The  first  two  resolutions,  after  considerable  farther  debate,  were  adopted. 
Upon  the  two  relating  to  the  "21st  rule,"  the  vote  was  not  then  taken. 

Mr.  A.  maintained  that  he  was  guilty  of  no  ofi"ense ;  he  had,  on  pre- 
senting the  petition,  declared  that  it  was  the  last  thing  he  would  ever 
vote  for.  He  also  repeated  what  he  had  said  on  former  occasions,  that 
he  had  given  notice  to  the  house,  the  petitioners,  and  the  whole  country. 


766  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

and  his  constituents  among  them,  that  if  they  sent  to  him  their  petitions 
for  abolishing  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  because  they  expected 
him  to  support  them,  they  were  mistaken. 

After  Mr.  Adams  had  occupied  two  or  three  days  more  in  his  defense, 
a  disposition  was  manifested  to  get  rid  of  the  subject,  by  laying  it  on 
the  table.  He  was  willing  to  acquiesce  in  such  a  proposition,  provided 
it  should  never  be  taken  up  again.  The  subject  was  thereupon  laid  on 
the  table,  by  a  vote  of  106  to  93 ;  and  the  reception  of  the  petition  was 
refused,  40  to  106. 

On  the  28th  of  February,  1842,  Mr.  Giddings,  of  Ohio,  presented  a 
petition  from  upwards  of  eighty  citizens  of  Austinburg,  in  his  district,  of 
both  political  parties,  it  was  said,  praying  for  an  amicable  division  of 
the  union,  separating  the  free  and  slave  states.  Mr.  Gr.  moved  a  refer- 
ence of  the  petition  to  a  select  committee,  with  instructions  to  report^ 
against  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners,  and  to  assign  reasons  why  their 
prayer  should  not  be  granted.  Mr.  Triplet^,  of  Kentucky,  considering 
the  petition  disrespectful  both  to  the  house  and  the  man  who  presented 
it,  moved  that  it  be  not  received.  The  question  on  receiving  the  petition 
was  decided  in  the  negative  :  ayes  24;  noes,  116. 

The  reasons  for  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners  were  assigned  by  them  in 
a  letter  to  Mr.  Gr.  from  one  of  jihem,  saying  :  "If  our  petitions  are  to  be 
treated  with  open  contempt  and  malignant  insult,  and  we  ourselves  held  up 
to  the  world  as  incendiaries  and  fanatics  ;  if  the  federal  government  is  to 
go  on,  year  after  year,  increasing  its  efforts  to  sustain  the  system  of 
slavery,  by  the  aid  of  the  money,  the  power  and  the  influence  of  the 
nation  at  large  :  then  we  ask,  and  ask  sincerely  too,  for  a  division." 

Mr.  Kennedy,  of  Maryland,  offered  a  resolution,  declaring  that  all 
such  petitions  should  thereafter  be  deemed  offensive,  and  the  member 
presenting  them  liable  to  censure.  The  resolution,  however,  was  not 
received.  For  quite  a  different  act,  however,  Mr,  Giddings,  at  a  later 
period  of  the  session,  incurred  a  formal  censure  of  the  house. 

In  October,  1841,  the  brig  Creole  left  Richmond  for  New  Orleans, 
with  a  cargo  consisting  principally  of  tobacco  and  slaves,  about  135  in 
number.  On  the  7th  of  November,  the  slaves  rose  upon  the  crew,  killed 
a  man  on  board  named  Hewell,  part  owner  of  the  negroes,  and  severely 
wounded  the  captain  and  two  of  the  crew.  Having  obtained  command 
of  the  vessel  they  directed  her  to  be  taken  into  the  port  of  Nassau,  in 
the  British  island  of  New  Providence,  where  she  arrived  on  the  9th. 
An  investigation  was  made  by  British  magistrates,  and  an  examination 
by  the  American  consul.  Nineteen  of  the  negroes  were  imprisoned  by 
the  local  authorities  as  having  been  concerned  in  the  mutiny  and  murder. 
Their  surrender  to  the  consul,  to  be  sent  to  the  United  States  for  trial 


CASE    OF    THE    BRIG    CREOLE.  767 

was  refused,  until  the  advice  of  the  government  of  England  could  be  bad. 
A  part  of  the  remaining  slaves  were  liberated  and  suffered  to  go  beyond 
the  control  of  the  master  of  the  vessel  and  the  consul. 

Mr.  Webster,  secretary  of  state,  in  a  letter  dated  January  29th,  1842, 
instructed  Mr.  Everett,  our  minister  at  London,  to  present  the  case  to 
the  British  government,  "  with  a  distinct  declaration,  that,  if  the  facts 
turn  out  as  stated,  this  government  think  it  a  clear  case  for  indemnifica- 
tion ;"  and,  in  support  of  such  a  claim,  he  refers  to  an  opinion  said  to 
have  been  expressed  by  his  majesty's  government  in  other  and  similar 
cases,  that  the  rule  by  which  these  claims  should  be  decided,  was,  that  the 
claimants  must  be  entitled  to  compensation  who  were  lawfully  in  posses- 
sion of  their  slaves  within  the  British  territory,  and  who  were  disturbed 
in  their  legal  possession  of  those  slaves,  by  the  functionaries  of  the  British 
government.  This  admission,  Mr.  Webster  thought  to  be  broad  enough  to 
cover  the  case  of  the  Creole.  "  But,"  he  says,  "  it  does  not  extend  to  what 
we  consider  the  true  doctrine  according  to  the  laws  and  usages  of  nations; 
and  therefore  can  not  be  acquiesced  in  as  the  exactly  correct  general 
rule.  It  appears  to  this  government,  that,  not  only  is  no  unfriendly 
interference  by  the  local  authorities  to  be  allowed,  but  that  aid  and 
succor  should  be  extended  in  these  as  in  other  cases  which  may  arise, 
affecting  the  interests  of  citizens  of  friendly  states."  None  except  the 
mutineers  having  come  voluntarily  within  British  territory,  the  laws  of 
England  affecting  and  regulating  the  conditions  of  persons  could  pro- 
perly act  upon  them.  It  was  not  complained  that  English  law  should 
decide  the  condition  of  persons  incorporated  with  British  population  ; 
but  in  the  case  of  the  Creole,  the  colored  persons  were  still  on  board  an 
American  vessel  forcibly  put  out  of  the  course  of  her  voyage  by  mutiny  ; 
the  master  desiring  to  resume  it,  and  calling  upon  the  consul  of  his  govern- 
ment and  upon  the  local  authorities  to  enable  him  to  do  so.  The  vessel 
must  be  considered  as  still  on  her  voyage,  and  entitled  to  the  succor  due  in 
other  cases  of  distress.  This  view,  he  said,  was  evident  from  the  awkward 
position  of  the  British  government  in  regard  to  the  mutineers  still 
imprisoned.  What  was  to  be  done  with  them  ?  How  were  they  to  be 
punished  ?  That  government  probably  would  not  undertake  to  try  or 
punish  them  ;  and  of  what  use  would  it  be  to  send  them  to  the  United 
States,  separated  from  their  ship,  and  at  a  period  so  late  as  that,  if  before 
proceedings  could  be  instituted  against  them,  the  witnesses  might  be 
scattered  over  half  the  globe?  And  thus  one  of  the  highest  offenses 
known  to  human  laws  would  be  likely  to  go  unpunished. 

Lord  Palraerston  had  said  on  a  former  occasion,  "  that  slavery  being 
now  abolished  throughout  the  British  empire,  there  can  be  no  well- 
founded  claim  for  compensation  in  respect  of  slaves  who,  under  any  cir- 


'768  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

cumstances,  may  come  into  the  British  colonies,  any  more  than  there 
would  be  with  respect  to  slaves  who  might  be  brought  into  the  kingdom." 
Our  government,  Mr.  "W.  said,  saw  no  ground  for  any  distinction  founded 
on  an  alteration  of  British  law  in  the  colonies.  The  question  did  not 
depend  on  the  state  of  British  law.  "  It  is  not  that  in  such  cases  the 
active  agency  of  British  law  is  invoked  and  recused ;  it  is,  that  un- 
friendly interference  is  deprecated,  and  those  good  offices  and  friendly 
assistances  expected  which  a  government  usually  affords  to  citizens  of  a 
friendly  power  when  instances  occur  of  disaster  and  distress.  All  that 
the  United  States  require,  in  these  cases,  they  would  expect  in  the  ports 
of  England,  as  well  as  in  those  of  her  colonies.  Surely,  the  influence 
of  local  law  cannot  affect  the  relations  of  nations  in  any  such  matter  as 
this.  Suppose  an  American  vessel,  with  slaves  lawfully  on  board,  were 
to  be  captured  by  a  British  cruiser,  as  belonging  to  some  belligerent, 
while  the  United  States  were  at  peace ;  suppose  such  prize  carried  into 
England,  and  the  neutrality  of  the  vessel  fully  made  out  in  the  proceed- 
ings in  admiralty,  and  a  restoration  consequently  decreed — in  such  case, 
must  not  the  slaves  be  restored  exactly  in  the  condition  in  which  they 
were  when  the  capture  was  made  ?  Would  any  one  contend  that  the 
fact  of  their  having  been  carried  into  England  by  force  set  them  free  ?" 

A  different  view  of  the  question  was  taken  by  Great  Britain.  Lord 
Brougham  stated  in  the  house  of  lords,  others  concurring  and  none  dis- 
senting, that  "  the  only  treaty  by  which  England  or  America  could 
claim  any  refugees,  either  from  the  other,  related  exclusively  to  murder- 
ers, forgers,  and  fraudulent  bankrupts ;  and  even  that  treaty  had  ex- 
pired. There  was  no  international  law  by  which  they  could  claim,  or 
we  give  up,  the  parties  who  had  taken  possession  of  the  Creole ;  and 
those  persons  must  stand  or  fall  by  British  laws  only."  All  agreed  that 
there  was  no  authority  to  surrender  the  fugitives,  nor  hold  in  custody 
the  mutineers ;  and  it  was  stated  that  orders  had  been  sent  for  their 
liberation. 

On  the  21st  of  March,  1842,  Mr.  Griddings  submitted  a  series  of  re- 
solutions on  a  subject  which,  he  said,  had  excited  some  interest  in  the 
other  end  of  the  capitol,  and  in  the  nation,  and  which  he  wished  to  lay 
before  the  country.  These  resolutions  declared  jurisdiction  over  slavery 
to  belong  exclusively  to  the  states  ;  that  by  the  8th  section  of  the  1  st 
article  of  the  constitution,  the  states  had  surrendered  to  the  federal  gov- 
ernment jurisdiction  over  commerce  and  navigation  upon  the  high  seas ; 
that  slavery,  being  an  abridgment  of  the  natural  rights  of  man,  can  exist 
only  by  force  of  positive  municipal  law^  and  is  necessarily  confined  to 
the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  power  creating  it ;  that  when  the  brig 
Creole  left  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  Virginia,  the  slave  laws  of  that 


CENSURE    OF    MR.    GIDDINGS.  769 

state  ceased  to  have  jurisdiction  over  the  persons  on  hoard  the  said  hrig, 
who  became  amenable  only  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  who, 
in  resuming  their  natural  rights  of  personal  liberty,  violated  no  law  of 
the  United  States  ;  and  that  all  attempts  to  reenslave  the  said  persons, 
or  to  exert  our  national  influence  in  favor  of  the  coastwise  slave  trade, 
or  to  place  the  nation  in  an  attitude  of  maintaining  a  "  commerce  in 
human  beings,"  were  subversive  of  the  rights  and  injurious  to  the  feel- 
ings and  the  interests  of  the  free  states,  unauthorized  by  the  constitution, 
and  incompatible  with  our  national  honor. 

Mr.  Ward,  of  New  York,  moved  the  previous  question  on  these  re- 
solutions. Mr.  Everett,  of  Vermont,  with  the  view,  probably,  to  their 
discussion,  moved  to  lay  them  on  the  table.  This  motion  was  rejected  : 
ayes,  52;  noes,  125.  The  previous  question  having  been  seconded,  and 
the  main  question  ordered,  Mr.  Giddings,  in  the  midst  of  the  confusion 
and  excitement  which  ensued,  withdrew  his  resolutions. 

Mr.  Botts  then  oiTered  a  resolution,  upon  the  adoption  of  which  he 
intended  to  move  the  previous  question.  The  preamble  to  the  resolution 
deprecated  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Giddings,  "  touching  a  subject  of 
negotiation  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  of  a  most  deli- 
cate  nature,"  and  as  possibly  "involving  those  nations  and  the  whole 
civilized  world  in  war  ;"  declared  it  to  be  the  duty  of  every  good  citizen, 
and  especially  of  every  representative  of  the  people,  to  discountenance 
all  efforts  to  create  excitement  and  division  among  the  people  under  such 
circumstances ;  and  denounced  them  as  justifying  mutiny  and  murder  ' 
in  terms  shocking  to  all  sense  of  law,  order  and  humanity  :  therefore 
"  Resolved^  That  this  house  hold  the  conduct  of  the  said  member  as 
altogether  unwarranted  and  unwarrantable,  and  deserving  the  severe 
condemnation  of  the  people  of  this  country,  and  of  this  body  in  par- 
ticular." 

An  excited  and  confused  debate  ensued,  which  continued  during  the 
remainder  of  that  day  and  the  next,  and  in  which  sundry  questions  of 
order,  appeals,  and  of  privilege  were  discussed.  Several  members  having 
expressed  a  desire  that  Mr.  Giddings  should  be  heard  in  his  defense,  he 
rose  and  said  :  "  I  stand  before  the  house  in  a  peculiar  situation."  Mr. 
Cooper,  of  Georgia,  objected  to  his  proceeding,  but  at  the  request  of  his 
colleagues  withdrew  his  objection.  But  Mr.  G.  did  not  resume  the  floor. 
He,  however,  addressed  to  the  reporter  of  the  National  Intelligencer  a 
note  stating,  that  when  he  was  called  to  order  the  last  time,  he  had  writ- 
ten and  desired  to  state  to  the  house  as  follows  : 

"  Mr.  Speaker  :  I  stand  before  the  house  in  a  peculiar  situation.  It  is 
proposed  to  pass  a  vote  of  censure  upon  me,  substantially  for  the  reason 
that  I  differ  in  opinion  from  a  majority  of  the  members.     The  vote  is 

49 


770  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

about  to  be  taken  without  giving  me  time  to  be  heard.  It  would  be  idle 
for  me  to  say  that  I  am  ignorant  of  the  disposition  of  a  majority  to  pass 
the  resolution.  I  have  been  violently  assailed  in  a  personal  manner,  but 
have  had  no  opportunity  of  being  heard  in  reply.  .  I  do  not  now  stand 
here  to  ask  for  any  favor  or  to  crave  any  mercy  at  the  hands  of  the 
members.  But  in  the  name  of  an  insulted  constituency — in  behalf  of 
one  of  the  sovereign  states  of  this  union — in  behalf  of  the  people  of 
these  states  and  the  federal  constitution — I  demand  a  hearing,  ac^reeably 
to  the  rights  guarantied  to  me,  and  in  the  ordinary  mode  of  proceeding. 
I  accept  of  no  other  privilege  ;  I  will  receive  no  other  courtesy." 

The  resolution  of  Mr.  Botts  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  125  to  69  ;  the 
preamble,  129  to  66. 

Mr.  Griddings  then  addressed  to  the  speaker  a  letter  of  resignation, 
which  was  the  next  day  (23d)  laid  before  the  house.  He  immediately 
departed  for  his  residence  in  Ohio — was  reelected  on  the  26th  of  April, 
at  a  special  election  called  by  the  governor  of  the  state,  by  a  majority 
of  about  3,500  votes  over  his  opponent — and  returned  to  his  seat  in  the 
house  on  the  5th  of  May. 


CHAPTER  LXIII. 

THE    TARIFF    OF  1842. PRESIDENTIAL  VETOES. BRITISH    COLONIAL    TRADE. 

NORTH-EASTERN  BOUNDARY  QUESTION  SETTLED. 

The  gradual  reduction  of  duties  provided  by  the  compromise  tariff 
of  March,  1833,  had  nearly  brought  them  to  the  lowest  rate  established 
by  that  act.  Sundry  manufactures  were  languishing,  from  the  want,  as 
was  supposed,  of  adequate  protection ;  and  a  material  augmentation  of 
the  revenue  had  become  necessary  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  govern- 
ment. Hence,  whatever  difference  of  opinion  may  have  existed  in  regard 
to  the  necessity  of  additional  protection  to  manufactures,  some  measure, 
it  was  universally  conceded,  was  necessary  to  increase  the  public  reve- 
nue ;  and,  as  it  was  contrary  to  the  general  policy  of  the  government  to 
resort  to  direct  taxation,  congress  was  compelled  to  adopt  the  alternative 
of  a  revision  of  the  tariff. 

Owing  to  delays  in  obtaining  the  necessary  information  upon  which  to 
base  their  report,  the  committee  on  manufactures  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives did  not  make  their  report  until  the  31st  of  March,  1842. 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1842.  771 

This  report  stated,  that  the  estimated  expenses  of  the  government  were, 
for  the  current  year,  about  $26,000,000  ;  which  would  leave  a  deficit  of 
about  $14,000,000.  Such  were  the  prospective  demands  upon  the  trea- 
sury— increased  by  the  enormous  expenses  of  the  Florida  war  which  was 
not  yet  terminated — that  some  permanent  provision  for  an  increased 
revenue  was  indispensable.  The  committee  presumed  the  effect  of  the 
depressed  price  of  cotton  and  all  our  principal  articles  of  produce,  the 
derangement  of  the  currency,  state  and  individual  indebtedness  abroad, 
and  the  general  stagnation  of  business,  would  be  to  lessen  importations. 
The  20  per  cent,  duties  to  be  collected  after  the  30th  of  June  next, 
under  the  tariff  of  1833,  would  not  yield  a  revenue  exceeding  about 
$15,000,000. 

The  committee,  being  of  the  opinion  that  specific  duties  afforded  the 
best  security  against  frauds,  which  opinion  was  confirmed  by  that  of 
intelligent  merchants  and  manufacturers,  they  had  been  to  a  great  extent 
retained.     The  committee  state  the  provisions  of  their  bill  as  follows : 

1.  A  general  ad  valorem  duty  of  thirty  per  cent.,  with  few  exceptions, 
where  the  duty  is  on  that  principle. 

2.  A  discrimination  is  made,  for  the  security  of  certain  interests 
requiring  it,  by  specific  duties,  in  some  instances  below,  in  others  above, 
the  rate  of  the  general  ad  valorem  duty. 

3.  As  a  general  principle,  the  duty  on  the  articles  subject  to  dis- 
crimination, is  made  at  the  rate  at  which  it  was  in  1840,  after  the  deduc- 
tion of  four-tenths  of  the  excess  over  twenty  per  cent,  under  the  act  of 
1833.  Many  departments  of  industry  were  successful  under  this  reduc- 
tion, which  could  not  bear  the  great  reduction  of  January  last,  and 
which  would  be  overwhelmed  under  the  full  operation  of  that  act. 

The  views  of  the  committee  in  relation  to  the  encouragement  of 
domestic  industry  by  duties  on  imports,  are  stated  at  great  length.  A 
few  paragraphs  are  given. 

"  All  the  great  interests  of  the  country  are  now  in  an  extremely 
depressed  condition  ;  every  branch  of  industry  is  paralyzed.  How  is  it 
that,  in  a  time  of  profound  peace,  with  a  country  abounding  in  natural 
resources,  .  .  .  and  blessed  by  Heaven  beyond  any  other  people 
who  ever  existed,  the  voice  of  complaint  should  come  up  from  every 
part  of  the  land  ? 

"  There  are  several  causes  for  the  present  depression  of  property  and 
general  stagnation  of  business,  one  of  which  will  be  admitted  to  be  the 
large  amount  of  our  importations  over  the  amount  of  exports.  This 
depresses  our  home  industry,  and  draws  from  the  country  annually  large 
balances  in  specie,  crippling  our  banks,  and  depriving  them  of  the  power 
to  grant  the  necessary  facilities.     The  same  causes  produced  the  exhaus- 


772  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tion  of  our  resources  and  the  embarrassment  which  were  the  principal 
cause  of  the  adoption  of  the  constitution.  As  stated  in  the  very  able 
petition  from  Windsor  county,  Vermont,  '  from  1783  to  1789,  the  trade 
of  the  thirteen  old  states  was  perfectly  free  to  the  whole  world.  The 
result  was,  that  Great  Britain  filled  every  section  of  our  country  with 
her  manufactures  of  wool,  cotton,  linen,  leather,  iron,  glass,  and  all  other 
articles  used  here,  and  in  four  years  she  swept  from  the  country  every 
dollar  and  every  piece  of  gold,'  &c. 

"  In  the  last  term  of  Gen.  Jackson's  administration,  the  imports 
exceeded  the  exports  each  year,  making  an  excess  of  $129,681,397. 

"  The  excess  of  imports  during  the  three  first  years  of  Mr.  Van 
Buren's  administration,  was  nearly  seventy  millions.  In  1840,  for  the 
first  time  for  ten  years,  there  was  an  excess  of  exports.  In  1841,  the 
imports  exceeded  the  exports  about  three  millions. 

"  A  tariff  of  duties  which,  while  it  will  supply  the  necessary  revenue, 
will  check  excessive  importations,  and  prevent  the  flow  of  specie  abroad 
for  the  payment  of  large  balances,  will  do  much  to  restore  the  prosperity 
of  the  nation.     *     *     * 

"  And  why  should  we  not  rely  more  upon  ourselves  and  on  our  policy? 
Is  there  anything  in  the  policy  of  other  nations  to  induce  us  to  lead  the 
way  in  free  trade  ?  Free  trade  I  Where  shall  we  go  to  find  an  exam- 
ple for  it  ?  AJl  the  great  nations  of  Europe  are  protecting  their  own 
industry,  and  encouraging  their  own  manufactures,  to  an  extent  before 
unknown.  France,  Prussia,  the  German  States,  and  even  Russia,  are 
making  rapid  advances  in  manufactures,  under  a  system  of  rigorous 
restrictions. 

'*  Until  the  European  nations  change  their  policy,  there  can  be  no 
really  free  trade  for  the  United  States.  Should  we  only  adopt  this 
policy,  free  trade  will  be  only  on  one  side,  and  that  not  ours.  We  shall 
enjoy  just  so  much  commerce  with  them  as  they  in  their  good  pleasure  . 
may  allow  us.  Shall  we  look  to  England  for  our  example  of  free  trade  ? 
England  imposes  prohibitory  duties  on  all  articles  she  can  raise  or  manu- 
facture. This  is  her  settled  policy.  Should  an  insufficient  tariff,  with 
her  vast  surpluses  poured  in  upon  us,  break  down  our  establishments, 
and  we  again  import  our  cotton,  woolen  and  other  manufactured  goods, 
what  would  she  receive  in  return  for  them  ?  With  what  could  we  pay 
her  ?  She  will  not  take  from  us  our  wheat  and  corn,  unless  her  popula- 
tion is  in  a  starving  condition,  because  they  will  interfere  with  her  own 
agricultural  interests.  The  products  of  our  fisheries  and  our  forests 
will  find  no  admission  there,  because  she  must  encourage  her  own  fishe- 
ries and  her  colonial  timber  trade.  She  will  take  a  few  thousand  hogs- 
heads of  tobacco,  but  charged  with  a  duty  and  excise   of  ten  times  its 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1842.  773 

original  cost,  and  thus  yielding  a  twelfth  part  of  her  revenue  from 
imports.  She  will  not  take  from  us  any  article  of  the  growth,  produce, 
or  manufacture  of  this  country,  except  our  cotton,  which  has  become 
essential  to  her  cotton  manufactures — that  branch  of  her  industry  which 
is  now  essential  to  her  national  wealth  and  power — and  she  is  straining 
every  nerve  to  become  independent  of  foreign  nations  for  this. 

"  That  most  numerous  and  important  class — the  agriculturists — have 
the  greatest  interest  in  the  prosperity  of  manufacturing  and  mechanical 
labor.  A  change  of  policy  which  should  break  these  down,  would 
deprive  them  of  their  best  markets.  "Wherever  manufacturing  establish- 
ments are  located,  villages  spring  up  around  them  ;  their  effects  are  im- 
mediately seen  in  the  increased  value  of  land  in  the  vicinity.  Perhaps 
it  would  not  be  extravagant  to  state  that  the  establishment  of  manufac- 
tures had  added  an  amount  to  the  agricultural  wealth  of  the  country 
equal  to  the  capital  employed  in  manufactures.  Few  are  aware  of  the 
extent  of  demand  for  agricultural  produce,  for  the  supply  of  a  single 
manufacturing  establishment.  An  interesting  statement  on  this  subject 
is  annexed  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Schenck." 

Annexed  to  the  report  of  the  committee  was  a  statement  with  statis- 
tical tables,  prepared  by  Mr.  Triplett,  a  member  from  Kentucky,  and 
designed  to  show  the  great  inequality  of  the  duties  levied  in  the  United 
States  upon  European  goods,  and  those  to  which  the  productions  of  this 
country  are  subjected  in  Europe. 
The  products  of  American  industry  sell  in  Europe,  after 

deducting  freight  and  charges,  except  duties,  in  round 

numbers,  for  -  -  -  .  ...  $204,500,000 
Of  which  we  receive -     91,000,000 


And  lose  in  paying  duties, $113,500,000 

The  products  of  European  industry  sell  in  the  United 
States,  after  deducting  freight  and  other  charges,  except 

duties,  for $90,000,000 

Of  which  the  Europeans  receive  -         -         -         -  73,000,000 

And  lose  in  paying  duties, $17,000,000 

Showing  that  we  pay  upwards  of  100  per  cent,  to  European  nations, 
while  they  pay  to  us  less  than  20  per  cent.  "  But,"  he  says,  "  great 
and  unjust  as  this  inequality  is,  on  the  total  amount  of  exportations 
from  the  United  States,  it  becomes  still  more  startling  in  its  manifest 
injustice  when  examined  as  to  a  particular  export — the  staple,  to  a  great 
extent,  of  several  particular  states.  Unmanufactured  tobacco  pays,  in 
Great  Britain,  since  the  15th  May,  1840,  a  duty  of  76  cents  per  pound, 


774  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

or  upwards  of  1250  per  cent.,  valuing  the  pound  of  tobacco  at  6  cents; 
in  Austria,  within  a  fraction  of  6  cents  per  pound,  or  100  per  cent.;  in 
Prussia,  3  1-2  cents  per  pound,  or  upwards  of  50  per  cent. ;  and  France 
levies  by  her  Regie,  or  indirect  duty,  about  one  dollar  per  pound,  or 
1,666  2-3  per  cent." 

Excluding  Russia,  Prussia,  and  Portugal,  for  which  he  had  not  yet 
completed  his  calculations,  Mr.  Triplett  says  : 
On  this  amount  of  average  annual  value  of  tobacco  shipped 

from  the  United  States,  for  the  years  1839  and  1840, 

to  wit,  on -         -     $9,225,145 

There  is  levied  by  the  other  European  nations  an  annual 

tax  of 32,463,540 


Showing  the  amount  for  which  American  tobacco  sells  in 
Europe,  exclusive  of  freight  and  other  charges  except 

duties,  to  be $41,688,685 

of  which  foreign  governments  retain  upwards  of  three-fourths,  and  the 
tobacco  planters  receive  less  than  one-fourth.  In  view  of  these  facts  he 
thinks  it  no  wonder  that  the  tobacco  growing  states  had  increased  less  in 
population  and  wealth  than  any  other  states  in  the  union ;  and  that  other 
agriculturists  had  suffered  more  or  less  from  a  similar  cause. 

As  usual,  a  counter  report  was  made  by  the  minority  of  the  commit- 
tee on  manufactures,  affording  another  instance  of  the  opposite  conclu- 
sions of  able  minds  from  the  same  facts.  The  report  gives  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  condition  of  the  people  of  G-reat  Britain,  which  it  considers 
to  be  the  result  of  her  restrictive  or  protecting  policy,  and  says,  that 
"  a  system  productive  of  such  effects  upon  her  population,  ought  not  to 
be  favored  by  a  government  established,  as  ours  is,  to  protect  the  rights 
and  happiness  of  all,  without  regard  to  ranks  or  sectional  interests." 
But  admitting  the  system  of  high  protection  to  be  beneficial  to  her 
people,  it  affords  no  evidence  that  the  same  system  is  suited  to  our  cir- 
cumstances. 

In  regard  to  the  benefits  supposed  to  be  derived  by  a  community  from 
the  establishment  of  a  factory  within  it,  the  minority  contend  that  these 
benefits  are  lost  or  neutralized  by  the  system  under  consideration. 
They  say  :  "  The  whole  neighborhood  would  be  benefitted,  if  the  govern- 
ment did  not,  under  the  guise  of  protection  to  the  labor  of  each,  extract 
a  heavy  amount  of  the  profits  of  each  and  of  all  by  high  taxation  ;  not 
by  a  tax  operating  directly  upon  the  manufiictures  or  the  raw  material, 
both  of  which  can  be  exported  to  foreign  markets,  and  thus  escape  the 
tax,  but  indirectly  by  a  tax  on  the  food  of  the  laborer,  who  at  last  is  the 
sole  producer.     This  tax  is  levied  in  the  shape  of  high  duties,  which 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1842.  775 

presents  foreign  grain  and  other  provisions  from  coming  into  competi- 
tion with  the  home  product,  and  thus,  by  keeping  the  latter  at  high 
prices,  forces  the  laborer  to  demand  an  erpivalent  in  high  wages,  in  order 
to  enable  him  to  live ;  and  this  increase  of  his  wages  retroiicts  again,  to 
neutralize  the  benefit  which  the  farmer  derives  from  tfie  protection.  A 
mere  revenue  duty  on  foreign  grain  would  not  have  produced  these 
effects ;  and  in  such  a  case  the  amount  of  revenue  would  have  been 
increased  by 'the  increase  of  imports  from  abroad,  while  now  no  revenue, 
comparatively,  is  derived  from  that  source,  in  consequence  of  the  high 
duty." 

The  minority  illustrate  their  argument  by  the  example  of  the  opera- 
tions of  the  woolen  factory  of  Mr.  Schenck  of  Dutchess  county.  New 
York,  of  whose  testimony  the  committee  had  availed  themselves  in  pre- 
paring their  report.  They  say  :  "  Thus,  continues  Mr.  S.,  by  the  capital 
of  $140,000  of  this  single  factory,  a  market  is  furnished  for  the  pro- 
ducts of  that  country,  of  $116,000;  (consisting  of  fleece  wool,  soap, 
teazles,  and  firewood,  $76,281  ;  and  $40,000,  the  wages  of  operatives.) 
The  labor  for  170  operatives,  alone,  supports  not  less  that  500  persons, 
and  these  consume,  weekly,  of  the  products  of  agriculture,  not  less  than 
the  value  of  ^200  per  week,  in  beef,  pork,  flour,  butter,  eggs,  milk, 
cheese,  &c.,  equal  to  $10,400  per  annum.  To  sum  up  the  whole,  in  his 
own  words  :  '  Thus  $1,422^000  is  the  agricultural  capital  now  in  requisi- 
tion to  supply  the  manufacturing  investment  of  £140,000.'  This  sup- 
ply consists  of  the  wool,  soap,  teazles  and  firewood,  used  in  the  factory; 
of  winter  fodder  and  summer  pasture  for  the  sheep,  and  provender  for 
the  horses;  and  food  for  170  operatives,  with  their  families,  estimated 
at  500. 

''  Here,  then,  is  a  large  expenditure,  beneficial  to  most,  if  not  all,  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  country,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  whole  population  of  England  is  more  or  less  benefited  by 
their  manufactures ;  that  is,  as  long  as  the  manufacturer  can  find  a  pro- 
fitable market  for  his  products,  and  as  long  as  the  government  abstains 
from  heavy  direct  taxation  outweighing  the  benefits.  Is  it  surprising 
that  the  people  of  Dutchess  county,  looking  alone  to  the  immediate 
benefits  to  themselves,  without  regard  to  the  ultimate  effects  on  them- 
selves^ or  to  the  immediate  effect  upon  other  portions  of  the  union,  should 
be  the  advocates  of  high  protection  ?  But  let  us  pursue  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Schenck,  not  for  showing  its  temporary  benefits  to  the  people  of 
Dutchess  county  but  for  the  purpose  of  showing  its  ultimate  results 
upon  the  interests  of  the  whole  union,  and  also  upon  the  people  of 
Dutchess  county  themselves." 

They  then  make  the  following  statement : 


776  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

Duties  paid  on  imported  articles  consumed  in  the  factory, 

olive  oil,  coal,  and  indigo, $1,724 

Value  of  manufactures  produced, $186,925 

Duties  on  this  sum  of  $186,925,  at  33  1-3  per  cent.,  about 

the  rate  at  which  the  foreign  article  would  be  imported,  $62,308 

Duty  at  20  per  cent,  on  home  valuation,    -         -         -         .  $37,385 

Whole  duty  actually  paid,  as  above,           .         .         .         .  1,724 

Loss  to  the  revenue  by  excluding  the  foreign  article,  -         -  $35,661 


They  then  say  :  "  Let  not  the  laborer  in  the  factory,  or  the  farmer,  or 
the  grazier,  who  supply  it,  be  deceived  by  the  immediate  benefits  to 
themselves :  they  must  also  look  to  the  immediate  and  ultimate  efi"ect 
upon  the  revenue  from  customs,  and  reflect,  that,  if  home  manufactures 
exclude  the  foreign,  they  must  reduce  or  destroy  revenue  from  foreign 
manufactures ;  and  that  the  government  will  be  forced,  of  necessity,  to 
supply  revenue  for  its  ordinary  wants,  to  heavy  taxation  on  tea  and 
coflFee,  now  admitted  free,  and  on  salt  and  other  foreign  products  of  com- 
mon use  among  them;  and,  when  these  fail  to  supply  a  sufficient  income, 
then  to  a  direct  taxation  on  their  lands,  buildings,  sheep,  and  capital 
and  labor,  as  is  now  the  case  in  England ;  for  revenue  must  be  had,  and 
to  an  amount  daily  increasing,  as  the  country  increases,  for  the  neces- 
sary increasing  expenditures  of  the  government.  The  immediate  benefit, 
then,  is  lost,  in  the  certainty  of  the  ultimate  burden,  which,  as  in  Eng- 
land, will  reduce  a  large  mass  of  our  people  to  a  taxation  pressing  them 
to  starvation." 

The  minority  then  proceed  to  show  the  efi"ects  of  the  system  upon  the 
different  portions  of  the  country,  and  upon  the  revenue.  For  this  pur- 
pose they  select  four  of  the  principal  branches  of  manufacture:  wool, 
iron,  leather,  and  cotton, — stating  the  value  of  the  manufactures  of  each 
in  the  two  divisions  of  the  union  ;  the  one  embracing  the  eight  states  of 
New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  Vermont, 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania,  with  a  free  population  of 
6,258,000 ;  and  the  rest  of  the  union  containing  a  free  population  of 
8,316,000,  and  a  slave  population  of  2,486,000  ;  in  all  10,802,000. 

The  value  of  the  manufactures  of  wool,  iron,  leather,  and  cotton,  in 
the  year  1840,  are  stated  as  follows  : 

Productions  of  the  eight  states,  -  -  -      $102,100,000 

Productions  of  the  rest  of  the  union,  -  -  -  23,080,000 

Foreign  products  consumed  in  the  union,  -  -  21,672,000 

Foreign  products  paying  duty  into  the  treasury,     -  -   19,498,000 


THE    TARIFF    OF   1842.  777 

Consumption  of  the  above  in  the  eight  states,  -  -  48,140,000 

Consumption  in  the  rest  of  the  union,  -  -  -  72,210,000 

Consumption  of  imports  in  eight  states,  -  -  8,667,S00 

Consumption  of  imports  in  all  others,  -  -      .       -   13,002,200 

Consumption  of  imports  paying  duty  in  eight  states,    -  7,797,000 

Consumption  of  the  same  in  all  others,        -  -  -   11,698,200 

"  The  first  of  these  results,"  they  proceed  to  say,  "  is  that  the  eight 
states  produced  in  1840,  $79,020,000  of  the  above  four  classes  of  manu- 
factures more  than  all  the  other  eighteen  states  and  territories,  and  that 
they  consumed  of  that  amount  $48,140,000,  leaving  the  residue,  after 
deducting  the  foreign  exports,  of  $4,926,000,  say  $25,954,000,  as  the 
consumption  of  the  rest  of  the  union,  of  the  domestic  manufactures  of 
woollens,  iron,  leather,  and  cottons,  of  the  eight  states.  Now,  if  we 
assume  the  average  duties  on  similar  articles  to  have  been,  in  1840,  35 
per  cent,  ad  valorum,  which  no  one  can,  we  think,  doubt,  who  will  ex- 
amine the  table  No.  3,  annexed  to  the  report  of  the  majority,  the  duty 
on  the  $25,954,000,  if  the  same  amount  had  been  imported,  would  have 
amounted  to  $9,083,000,  while  the  duty  actually  paid  into  the  treasury 
on  all  the  imports  of  the  like  four  classes  of  manufactures,  calculated  on 
the  same  rate  of  duty,  paid  into  the  treasury  only  $6,823,000.  Now, 
all  the  manufacturers  who  have  been  examined  before  the  committee, 
seem  to  agree  that,  unless  the  duties  on  those  articles  are  kept  as  high 
as  they  were  in  1840,  they  can  not  live,  or  compete  with  the  foreign 
manufacture  in  our  own  market ;  and  in  this  opinion  the  majority  of  the 
committee  seem  to  have  concurred,  by  reporting  a  bill  assessing  the 
same  amount  of  duties  on  those  imports  as  were  levied  in  1840.  If  so, 
the  consumers  pay,  in  the  increased  price  of  the  domestic  product  over 
the  foreign,  the  whole  duty  of  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  (that  is,  $9,083,- 
000,)  which  whole  amount  is  paid  by  the  eighteen  states  and  territories 
in  the  following  proportions,  according  to  representative  population,  at 
the  ratio  of  65,500,  that  is  to  say,  dividing  the  whole  into  128  parts : 
Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Michigan,  pay  43  parts,  or  $3,054,000; 
Delaware,  Maryland,  and  Virginia,  23  parts,  or  $1,632,000  ;  Kentucky 
and  Tennessee,  pay  21  parts,  or  $1,490,000;  North  and  South  Caro- 
lina, Georgia,  Alabama,  Louisiana,  and  Mississippi,  41  parts,  or 
$2,907,000.  In  these  estimates  we  have  taken  the  two-fifths  of  the 
slave  population  unrepresented  as  equivalent  to  the  consumption  of  the 
state  of  Maine,  and  the  three  territories  and  the  District.  Of  this 
whole  amount,  not  one  dollar  goes  into  the  treasury,  but  the  whole  to 
the  manufacturers  of  the  eight  states,  as  the  result  of  the  difference  of 
price  secured  to  them  by  the  protective  duty.  This  being  the  fact,  the 
inquiry  is  presented  to  these  eighteen  states,  whether,  as  a  mere  matter 


778  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  profit  and  loss,  those  states,  or  any  portion  of  them,  gain,  in  the  pro- 
tection afforded  to  their  iiroductions,^  an  equivalent  for  this  amount  of 
indirect  taxation  ?  We  think  not,  especially  when  it  is  considered  that 
this  consumption  of  the  foreign  article,  thus  excluded  by  the  domestic, 
would  have  paid  into  the  treasury  the  greater  part  if  not  the  whole  of 
the  $9,083,000,  at  no  greater  cost  to  them^  and  of  a  greater  portion  of 
which  they  would  have  got  the  benefit  of  the  expenditure.  And  for 
this  amount  of  duty,  and  the  $29,994,000  of  the  consumption,  they  have 
actually  paid  in  their  foreign  exports,  though  not  into  the  treasury^  or 
to  the  foreign  producer  ^  as  will  appear  by  the  statement  of  foreign  ex- 
ports above.  The  distribution  which  we  have  thus  made  of  this  tax 
among  the  states,  as  above,  must,  of  course,  be  modified  by  the  greater 
or  less  amount  of  their  own  domestic  production  of  the  several  kinds." 

While  the  majority  proposed  to  raise  the  duties  in  order  to  increase 
the  revenue,  the  minority  seemed  to  apprehend  danger  to  the  revenue 
from  the  increase  of  home  manufactures  and  the  consequent  diminution 
of  importations ;  and  they  named  several  articles  of  which  the  quantity 
imported  had  been  so  diminished  by  the  home  manufacture,  as  to  re- 
duce the  duties  on  them  to  an  inconsiderable  amount. 

They  controverted  the  doctrine  of  the  protectionists,  that  the  addi- 
tional tax  to  the  consumer  is  neutralized  or  compensated  by  the  bene- 
fits derived  from  the  domestic  manufacture  ;  and  reassert,  and  endeavor 
to  establish  those  which  are  usually  maintained  by  the  opponents  of 
protection.  They  endeavored  to  show  that  the  effect  of  high  duties  and 
protection  hitherto  in  our  country  had  been  to  excite  ruinous  competi- 
tion, and  to  prevent  an  increase  of  revenue  on  particular  articles  of 
manufacture,  of  large  consumption,  proportioned  to  our  increasing  neces- 
sity for  revenue.  They  also  endeavored  to  show,  that,  whatever  tempo- 
rary benefits  might  have  resulted  to  the  people  in  manufacturing  sections 
from  high  protection,  those  benefits  would  be  only  temporary  ;  and  that, 
if  the  farther  protection  now  demanded  should  be  afforded,  it  would 
hasten  the  evil  day  to  them,  which  must  come,  and  greatly  aggravate 
the  evil  when  it  does  come — a  day  when  the  legislation  most  friendly 
to  the  manufacturer,  could  not  provide  relief 

No  question  in  political  economy  has  been  more  fruitful  of  discussion 
than  that  of  protection  to  domestic  industry  by  duties  on  imports  ;  none, 
probably,  on  which  public  opinion  is  still  more  equally  divided.  States- 
men of  gigantic  intellects,  the  most  successful  business  men,  of  equal 
sagacity  in  private  affairs,  have,  from  the  same  evidence,  formed  directly 
opposite  conclusions  on  this  subject.  ' 

While  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee  on  manufactures  was  pend- 
ing in  the  committee  of  the  whole,  the  bill  accompanying  the  report  of 


THE    TARIFF    OF    1842.  779 

the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  (Mr.  Forward,)  was  reported  to  the  house 
by  Mr.  Fillmore,  from  the  committee  of  ways  and  means.  This  was 
considered  as  more  particularly  a  revenue  hill. 

It  will  be  remembered  that,  on  the  SOtli  of  June,  the  last  reduction 
provided  by  the  compromise  act  was  to  take  place.  There  being  no 
prospect  of  the  passage  of  any  new  tariff  law  in  time  to  prevent  the 
operation  of  that  act,  a  bill  had  been  reported,  and  was  taken  up  the 
10th  of  June,  to  extend,  until  the  1st  of  August  next,  all  laws  regulat- 
ing duties  existing  and  in  force  on  the  1st  of  June,  with  a.  proviso ^  that 
nothing  therein  contained  should  suspend  the  operation  of  the  distribu- 
tion law — the  law  passed  at  the  extra  session  the  preceding  year  (1841) 
to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  among  the  states. 
The  first  half  yearly  distribution  under  that  act  was  to  be  made  the  1st 
of  July.  Besides  being  simply  designed  to  afford  time  to  pass  a  per- 
manent law,  this  proposed  temporary  act  was  deemed  necessary  for 
another  purpose.  Under  the  compromise  act,  there  was  to  be  from  and 
after  the  30th  of  June  a  home  valuation,  and  cash  duties.  There  had 
as  yet  been  no  law  enacted  to  regulate  the  collection  under  those  pro- 
visions ;  and  it  was  questioned  whether  there  was  any  law  to  enforce 
them. 

In  the  debate  on  this  bill,  the  proviso  became  a  prominent  topic  of 
discussion.  It  will  be  recollected,  that  the  distribution  act  contained  a 
provision,  that  if  at  any  time  the  duties  under  the  compromise  should 
be  raised  above  the  rates  prescribed  by  that  act,  then  the  distribution 
should  cease,  and  be  suspended,  until  the  cause  of  the  suspension  should 
be  removed.  This  proviso  to  the  distribution  was,  at  the  time  of  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  highly  objectionable  to  many  of  the  friends  of  dis- 
tribution ;  but  its  adoption  was  found  necessary  to  insure  its  passage ; 
as  the  advocates  of  a  low  tariff  were  apprehensive  that  the  abstraction 
of  the  money  arising  from  land  sales  from  the  national  revenues,  would 
create  a  necessity  for  an  increase  of  duties.  Those  who  were  in  favor 
of  high  protective  duties,  desired  the  removal  of  the  proviso  of  the  dis- 
tribution act,  that  the  tariff  might  be  raised  without  interfering  with 
distribution.  The  day  having  been  spent  in  the  discussion  of  this  pro- 
posed temporary  extension  bill,  in  committee  of  the  whole,  the  committee 
rose  and  reported  ;  when  Mr.  Fillmore  offered  a  resolution  to  terminate 
the  debate  on  the  bill  in  half  an  hour;  but  the  house  ''  being  evidently 
in  a  bad  temper,"  Mr.  F.  waived  the  question  for  the  day. 

On  the  14th,  the  resolution  was  modified  so  as  to  close  the  debate  in 
committee  the  next  day  at  2  o'clock,  and  adopted.  On  that  day,  after 
having  rejected  an  amendment  proposing  to  strike  out  the  proviso  which 
prohibited  the  suspension  of  the  distribution  law,  the  bill  was  passed  by 


780  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  house,  116  to  103.  It  passed  the  senate  24  to  19,  and  was  sent  to 
the  president  for  his  approval ;  who,  on  the  29th,  returned  it  to  the 
house  with  his  I  forbid. 

The  bill  was  objected  to  because  it  abrogated,  for  the  time,  the  pro- 
visions of  the  compromise  act,  that  is,  it  continued  the  existing  duties 
for  one  month  after  the  30th  of  June,  when  a  reduction  was  to  take 
place.  The  alleged  necessity  for  the  act  was  to  enable  congress  to  pro- 
vide rules  and  regulations  for  assessing  the  duties  on  imports  after  the 
30th  of  June,  according  to  the  home  valuation  and  cash  payments  of 
duties  then  to  take  place;  yet  the  bill  provided,  that  if,  before  the  Ist 
of  August  there  should  be  no  further  legislation  upon  the  subject,  the 
existing  laws  were  to  be  the  same  as  if  this  act  had  not  been  passed. 
The  distribution  which  was  to  be  made  the  1st  of  July,  was  also  to  be  defer- 
red until  the  1st  of  August.  He  considered  the  present  laws  sufl&cient  to 
enable  the  collecting  ofl&cers,  under  the  directions  of  the  secretary,  to 
levy  the  duties  imposed  by  the  act  of  1833.  The  government,  he  said, 
was  under  moral  obligation  to  adhere  to  the  principles  of  the  compro- 
mise. That  act  provided  "  that  duties  shall  be  laid  for  the  purpose  of 
raising  such  revenue  as  may  be  necessary  to  an  economical  administra- 
tion of  the  government."  It  therefore  justified  any  enlargement  of 
duties  required  by  the  real  exigencies  of  the  public  service.  He  admit- 
ted that  an  increase  of  duties  was  necessary  ;  and  congress  might  so  dis- 
criminate as  to  give  incidental  protection  to  manufacturing  industry. 

But  he  considered  it  as  an  indispensable  condition  of  an  increase  of 
duties,  that  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  land  sales  should  be 
suspended ;  and  which,  by  the  distribution  act,  were  to  cease  whenever 
the  duties  imposed  by  the  compromise  act  should  be  raised  above  20  per 
cent. ;  but  the  proviso  of  the  bill  under  consideration  would  continue 
the  distribution,  notwithstanding,  after  the  1st  of  August.  To  abandon 
the  principle  for  a  month,  is  to  open  the  way  for  its  total  abandonment. 
If  such  is  not  meant,  why  postpone  at  all  ?  Why  not  let  the  distribu- 
tion take  place  on  the  1st  of  July  ? 

The  veto  was  equally  the  cause  of  joy  to  one  party  and  of  indignation 
to  the  other.  Mr.  Holmes,  of  South  Carolina,  said  he  had  never  felt  a 
moment  of  such  spontaneous,  heartfelt  thanksgiving  to  Heaven  as  he  did 
at  this  moment.  It  had  come  from  above  to  check  the  house's  mad 
career,  when  it  had  undertaken  to  violate  a  sacred  compact  between  the 
north  and  the  south,  and  had  rescued  the  country  from  impending  civil 
war.  If  the  madness  of  party  should  carry  such  a  bill  again,  it  would 
be  vetoed  again.  This  placed  John  Tyler  in  the  head  and  forefront  of 
the  battle  for  the  institutions  of  his  country,  and  there  the  people  would 
sustain  him. 


PRESIDENTIAL    VETOES^  781 

Mr.  Granger  called  upon  members  to  maintain  their  ground  against 
the  extraordinary  assumption  of  executive  authority  developed  in  the 
veto  message,  and  in  support  of  the  manufacturing  interest  as  well  as  the 
distribution. 

Mr.  Saltonstall  deplored  that  the  debate  had  been  prematurely  entered 
upon,  but  contended  against  this  unprecedented  exercise  of  the  veto 
power.  The  veto  went  on  the  naked  principle  of  expediency.  It  was 
his  opinion  that  the  duties  after  to-morrow  could  not  be  collected,  with- 
out a  system  of  regulations. 

Mr.  Fillmore  asked,  on  what  principle  this  veto  was  based.  The  presi- 
dent could  not  consent  that  the  distribution  should  cease  for  a  single  day. 
That  was  the  profession  ;  but  it  appeared  to  be  but  a  pretense.  What 
was  the  law  which  that  message  vetoed  ?  It  authorized  the  collection 
of  duties  for  a  single  month  as  they  were  levied  on  the  first  of  January 
last,  to  allow  time  for  the  consideration  of  a  permanent  revenue  for  the 
country ;  and  postponed  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  from  the  sale 
of  the  public  lands  till  the  month  should  expire,  and  congress  could 
provide  the  necessary  supplies  for  the  exhausted  treasury.  Did  the  veto 
prevent  distribution  ?  By  no  means  :  it  reduced  the  duties,  in  efi'ect,  to 
20  per  cent.,  and  authorized  the  distribution  of  the  land  fund  among  the 
states,  which  would  take  place  the  day  after  to-morrow.  Mr.  F.  said  the 
secretary  of  the  treasury  doubted  whether  the  duties  could  be  collected, 
but  the  president  had  told  the  house  that  any  farther  law  was  unneces- 
sary ;  he  had  power  enough  in  his  own  hands,  and  he  should  use  it.  The 
question  then  was,  whether  congress  or  the  executive  should  legislate  for 
the  people  of  this  country. 

Mr.  Gushing  advocated  the  veto  power  and  this  exercise  of  it ;  and 
insisted  upon  the  land  proceeds  going  into  the  treasury.  It  was  the  duty 
of  the  house  to  retract.  He  appeared  to  doubt  that  the  revenue  could 
be  collected  without  farther  legislation,  but  congress  should  immediately 
pass  the  necessary  laws.  The  question  was  whether  the  government 
should  be  brought  to  a  stand  by  the  refusal  of  the  house  to  perform  its 
duty. 

Mr.  Briggs  (next  day)  followed  in  opposition  to  the  message,  and  to 
some  of  the  remarks  of  his  colleague  (Mr.  Gushing,)  who  had  said  that 
the  issue  was  not  between  this  house  and  the  president,  but  between  this 
house  and  the  people.  Had  the  president  no  issue  with  the  people  that 
had  raised  him  to  his  office  ?  Was  not  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
.  party  that  placed  him  in  power  in  favor  of  distribution  ?  His  colleague 
said  the  house  had  an  issue  with  the  president.  He  (Mr.  B.)  had  no 
such  miserable  views. 

The  debate  was  continued  for  several  days,  when,  (July  4,)  the  ques- 


782  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tion  was  taken  upon  the  passage  of  the  bill,  notwithstanding  the  veto ; 
ayes,  114;  noes,  91  ;  absent,  31.  Rejected;  two-thirds  not  voting  in 
the  affirmative.  "  ; 

The  house,  the  next  day,  again  took  up  the  tariff  or  revenue  bill, 
and  the  day  following  adopted  a  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Fillmore, 
that  the  debate  on  the  bill  should  cease  on  or  before  the  12th,  at  12 
o'clock.  It  was  accordingly  debated,  and,  having  received  sundry  amend- 
ments, passed  the  house,  July  16,  by  a  vote  of  116  to  112.  This  bill 
provided  to  continue  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands, 
notwithstanding  the  proposed  increase  of  duties.  It  passed  the  senate 
on  the  5th  of  August,  by  a  vote  of  25  to  23.  The  vote  in  both  houses 
was  almost  a  strict  party  vote.  Only  one  democrat  in  the  house,  Mr. 
Parmenter,  of  Massachusetts,  voted  for  the  bill.  Against  it  were  16 
whigs,  all  but  one  from  southern  states.  In  the  senate,  the  votes  in  its 
favor  were  all  from  whigs ;  against  it,  3  whigs,  Preston,  Graham  and 
Rives,  all  southern  senators.  The  bill  was  sent  to  the  president  for 
his  approval,  and  on  the  9th  was  returned  to  the  house  with  another 

VETO. 

This  veto — "  ditto  "  veto,  it  was  called — ^was  taken  up  the  next  day 
for  consideration.  Mr.  Adams  addressed  the  house  ;  and  in  the  course 
of  his  speech  made  some  severe  animadversions  upon  the  numerous  vetoes 
of  the  president.  He  considered  this  last  veto  an  "  extraordinary  exercise 
of  power."  The  president,  he  said,  seemed  to  be  acting  with  reference 
to  a  reelection.  He  had  united  himself  in  some  measure  to  the  demo- 
cratic party;  but  he  (Mr.  A.)  predicted  that,  if  that  party  succeeded, 
they  would  be  as  much  thwarted  by  the  president,  as  the  party  now  in 
the  majority  had  been. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Adams,  the  message  was  referred  to  a  committee 
of  thirteen  members,  who  made  a  report,  written  by  Mr.  Adams,  contain- 
ing a  review  of  the  condition  of  the  country,  the  action  of  congress,  the 
frequent  application  of  the  executive  veto  to  measures  adopted  by  con- 
gress, and  particularly  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  president  for 
applying  the  power  of  negative  to  the  last  bill.     The  committee  say  : 

"  They  perceive  that  the  whole  legislative  power  of  the  union  has  been 
for  the  last  fifteen  months,  with  regard  to  the  action  of  congress  upon 
measures  of  vital  importance,  in  a  state  of  suspended  animation, 
strangled  by  the  five  times  repeated  stricture  of  the  executive  cord. 
They  observe,  that,  under  these  unexampled  obstructions  to  the  exercise 
of  their  high  and  legitimate  duties,  they  have  hitherto  preserved  the  most 
respectful  forbearance  towards  the  executive  chief;  that  while  he  has, 
time  after  time,  annulled  by  the  mere  act  of  his  will  their  commission 
from  the  people  to  enact  laws  for  the  common  welfare,  they  have  forborne 


PRESIDENTIAL    VETOES.  783 

even  the  expression  of  their  resentment  for  these  multiplied  insults  and 
injuries — they  believed  they  had  a  high  destiny  to  fulfill,  by  administer- 
ing to  the  people  in  the  form  of  law  remedies  for  the  sufi'erings  which 
they  had  too  long  endured.  The  will  of  one  man  has  frustrated  all  their 
labors  and  frustrated  all  their  powers. 

"  The  power  of  the  present  congress  to  enact  laws  essential  to  the 
welfare  of  the  people  has  been  struck  with  apoplexy  by  the  executive 
hand.  Submission  to  his  will  is  the  only  condition  upon  which  he  will 
permit  them  to  act.  For  the  enactment  of  a  measure  earnestly  recom- 
mended by  himself  he  forbids  their  action  unless  coujded  viiih.  a  comliiion 
declared  by  himself  to  be  on  a  subject  so  totally  different,  that  he  will 
not  suffer  them  to  be  coupled  in  the  same  law.  With  that  condition 
congress  can  not  comply.  In  this  state  of  things  he  has  assumed,  as  the 
committee  fully  believe,  the  exercise  of  the  whole  legislative  power  to 
himself,  and  is  levying  millions  of  money  upon  the  people  without  any 
authority  of  law." 

The  report  concludes  with  a  resolution  proposing  an  amendment  to  the 
constitution,  requiring,  instead  of  two-thirds,  "  a  majority  of  the  whole 
number"  of  members  of  each  house  to  pass  a  bill  against  the  president's 
objections.     It  was  signed  by  ten  of  the  committee. 

Another  report  was  presented,  by  two  of  the  committee,  C.  J.  Inger- 
soll  and  James  I.  Roosevelt,  in  which  they  say  it  is  not  for  their  protest 
to  explain  or  enforce  the  executive  objections.  Letting  them  speak  for 
themselves,  they  vindicate  constitutional  rights  and  deprecate  wrongs  by 
congress.  They  considered  it  the  duty  of  congress,  not  to  adjourn  with- 
out enacting  a  law  for  revenue.  They  should  not  afford  the  president  so 
great  a  triumph. 

The  remaining  member,  Mr.  Gilmer,  made  a  counter  report  and  pro- 
test, in  defense  of  the  president,  and  in  opposition  to  the  tariff  bill  and 
the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  land  sales. 

Impelled  by  the  necessity  of  providing  additional  revenue,  a  bill  was 
in  a  few  days  hastened  through  the  house,  the  same  as  that  before  passed, 
the  clause  having  been  struck  out  which  required  distribution,  and  the 
bill  so  modified  as  to  admit  free  of  duty,  tea  imported  in  American  ves- 
sels from  beyond  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and  coffee.  The  vote  was  105 
to  103.  The  bill  was  sent  to  the  senate,  where,  having  received  some 
amendments,  (afterwards  concurred  in  by  the  house,)  it  passed  24  to  23 ; 
being  saved  only  by  Mr.  Wright's  having  voted  with  the  whigs.  No 
other  democrat  voted  for  the  bill.  The  necessity  of  adopting  some 
measure  for  revenue,  rather  than  his  approval  of  the  bill,  probably 
induced  Mr.  Wright  to  vote  in  its  favor.  The  bill  was  approved  by  the 
president. 


784  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

A  separate  bill  was  then  passed,  repealing  the  proviso  of  the  distribu- 
tion act,  so  as  to  allow  the  distribution  to  take  place  notwithstanding  the 
increase  of  duties  ;  but  the  bill  was  retained  in  the  hands  of  the  presi- 
dent, and  thus  defeated. 

Besides  the  numerous  petitions  at  this  session  of  congress  for  a  modi- 
fication of  the  tariif,  there  were  several  memorials  from  the  state  of 
Maine,  praying  for  relief  from  the  effects  of  the  want  of  reciprocity  in 
the  colonial  trade  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  as 
established  by  the  arrangement  of  Mr.  M'Lane  in  1830.  *  *  * 
It  was  stated  in  a  memorial  from  Portland,  presented  to  the  house  by 
Mr.  Eessenden,  that  the  effect  of  that  arrangement  had  been  to  cripple 
our  trade  with  the  British  West  India  colonies — which,  though  indirect, 
had  been  valuable — and  to  increase  largely  that  of  Grreat  Britain.  Nine- 
tenths  of  that  intercourse  had  been  carried  on  in  American  vessels; 
whereas,  the  amount  of  British  and  American  tonnage  was  now  about 
equal.  The  effect  upon  Maine  had  been  peculiarly  disastrous.  Before 
the  treaty  went  into  operation,  Maine  had  ten  thousand  tons  of  shipping 
employed  in  the  trade  with  the  British  North  American  colonies  alone. 
She  had  now  been  driven  out  entirely,  while  the  shipping  of  the  colonies 
had  been  increased  four-fold,  and  they  had  a  direct  and  unembarrassed 
trade  with  this  country. 

Another  petition  from  that  state  declared  that  the  opening  of  our 
ports  to  Grreat  Britain  had  been  obtained  by  fraud.  She  had  promised 
reciprocity,  but  she  would  not  grant  it.  A  part  only  of  her  colonial 
ports  had  been  opened.  Those  where  return  cargoes  could  be  obtained 
for  our  vessels,  remained  closed.  Nor  did  we,  at  the  colonial  free  ports, 
enjoy  equal  privileges.  Our  vessels  were  subjected  to  many  vexations 
and  charges  from  which  British  vessels  were  exempt.  The  petitioners 
said,  of  the  trade  in  plaster  of  paris,  so  important  to  that  state,  Maine 
had  lost  the  greater  part.  Nearly  200,000  tons  annually  were  exported 
from  the  provinces  to  the  United  States ;  the  most  of  which  had  been 
transported  in  American  vessels,  but  was  now  for  the  most  part  done  by 
British  vessels.  From  some  of  the  quarries,  we  were  entirely  excluded. 
The  same  was  true  of  the  grindstone  trade.  The  petitioners  therefore 
prayed,  that  the  effect  of  the  proclamation  of  the  president  in  1830, 
making  our  ports  free  to  the  navigation  of  Great  Britain,  be  done  away, 
and  that  the  navigation  acts  of  1818,  1820  and  1828  be  revived.  No 
action  beyond  the  reception  of  the  petitions  appears  to  have  been  taken 
upon  the  subject. 

The  ineffectual  attempts  hitherto  to  settle  the  north-eastern  boundary 
question  have  been  already  mentioned.  The  want  of  a  territorial  line  had 
been  the  source  of  constant  irritation  to  the  inhabitants  of  both  coun- 


NORTH-EASTERN    BOUNDARY    QUESTION    SETTLED.  785 

tries  residing  within  the  disputed  territory,  and  of  great  annoyance  to 
those  of  Maine  in  particular.  Military  forces  had  been  called  out  by 
the  authorities  of  both  Maine  and  Canada  to  defend  their  respective  ter- 
ritories against  intrusion  and  depredation.  A  citizen  of  Maine  had  been 
taken  prisoner  on  disputed  territory.  The  act,  however,  was  disclaimed 
by  the  British  authorities,  and  the  prisoner  released.  This  controversy 
had  been  for  many  years  a  standing  topic  of  presidential  communication 
to  congress,  and  had  generally  been  represented  as  being  in  a  state  unfa- 
vorable to  a  speedy  termination. 

A  new  attempt  at  amicable  adjustment  by  negotiation  was  made  in 
1842  ;  and  lord  Ashburton  was  appointed  by  the  British  government  as 
minister  extraordinary  to  the  United  States  for  this  purpose.  He 
arrived  in  this  country  the  3d  of  April,  and  was  introduced  in  due  form 
to  the  president  on  the  5th.  The  expectations  of  a  successful  negotia- 
tion, founded  upon  the  character  of  the  British  envoy,  and  the  belief  of 
the  sincerity  of  the  professed  pacific  intentions  on  the  part  of  his  govern- 
ment, were  not  disappointed.  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  legisla- 
tures of  Maine  and  Massachusetts,  and  also  by  the  government  of  the 
province  of  New  Brunswick,  participated  in  the  negotiation.  On  the 
9th  of  August,  a  treaty  of  boundary  was  concluded,  to  the  almost  entire 
satisfaction  of  the  negotiators,  and  to  the  country  generally.  Mutual 
concessions  had  of  course  been  found  necessary,  with  some  of  which,  as  it 
was  natural  to  presume,  the  people  of  Maine  were  not  fully  satisfied. 

The  line,  to  some  extent,  corresponded  to  that  proposed  by  the  king 
of  the  Netherlands.  The  claim  to  that  portion  of  the  Madawaska  settle- 
ment lying  south  of  the  St.  John's  river,  strenuously  maintained  hereto- 
fore by  Great  Britain,  was,  after  a  warm  contest  with  lord  Ashburton, 
relinquished  to  the  United  States.  The  Aroostook,  also  in  dispute,  was 
yielded  by  Great  Britain.  A  tract  lying  north  of  the  St.  John's  and 
claimed  by  Maine,  was  relinquished  for  the  free  navigation  of  that  entire 
river.  Kouse's  point  also,  of  which  Great  Britain  had  for  many  years 
had  possession,  was  relinquished  to  the  United  States.  This  treaty  pro- 
vided for  settling  the  entire  line  between  the  two  countries  to  the  Rocky 
Mountains ;  for  the  final  suppression  of  the  slave  trade ;  and  for  the 
giving  up  of  criminals,  fugitives  from  justice,  in  certain  cases. 

For  the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade,  each  of  the  parties  was  to  main- 
tain in  service,  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  an  adequate  squadron,  carrying 
not  less  than  eighty  guns ;  to  be  independent  of  each  other,  but  acting 
in  concert  and  cooperation.  Persons  charged  in  either  country  with 
murder,  or  assault  with  intent  to  commit  murder,  piracy,  robbery,  or 
forgery,  and  found  in  the  other,  were  to  be  delivered  up  to  justice. 

The  treaty  was  ratified  by  Great  Britain  the  13th  of  October,  and  on 

50 


786  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  10th  of  November,  proclaimed  by  the  president  of  the  United  States. 
The  news  of  the  ratification  by  the  British  government  was  received 
with  general  satisfaction.  In  some  places  public  rejoicings  were  held  ; 
and  much  applause  was  bestowed  upon  Mr.  Webster  for  his  successful 
negotiation  of  the  settlement  of  this  long  standing  difficulty.  Some  of 
the  British  papers  contained  expressions  of  strong  dissatisfaction  with 
the  concessions  made  by  lord  Ashburton. 


CHAPTER  LXIV. 

ANNEXATION     OF    TEXAS. THE    PROJECT    DEFEATED. DEATH    OF     MEBSr.f.. 

UPSHUR    AND    GILMER. 

Since  the  rejection,  by  the  administration  of  Mr.  Van  Bur^n,  of  the 
proposition  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  union,  the  subject  had 
been  permitted  to  rest  in  a  state  of  comparative  slumber.  The  project, 
however,  had  been  by  no  means  abandoned.  Both  the  purpose  and  the 
object  of  annexation  had  been  avowed  by  southern  men  and  southern 
legislatures.  A  report  of  a  committee  of  the  legislature  of  Mississippi 
speaks  of  the  importance  of  the  annexation  of  Texas.  It  declares  that 
slavery  is  "  highly  beneficial  to  the  country  within  whose  limits  it  is 
permitted  to  exist;"  that  "the  south  has  very  peculiar  interests  to 
preserve;"  that  "protection  to  her  best  interest  will  be  afforded  by  the 
annexation  of  Texas ;  an  equipoise  of  influence  in  the  halls  of  congress 
will  be  secured,  which  will  furnish  us  a  permanent  guaranty  of  protec- 
tion." 

The  intentions  of  the  south  had  been  thus  avowed  by  Mr.  Wise,  a 
confidential  friend  of  president  Tyler,  on  the  floor  of  congress  in  1842  : 
"  True,  if  Iowa  be  added  on  the  one  side,  Florida  will  be  added  on  the 
other.  But  there  the  equation  must  stop.  Let  one  more  northern 
state  be  admitted,  and  the  equilibrium  is  gone — gone  for  ever.  The 
balance  of  interests  is  gone — the  safeguard  of  American  property — of 
the  American  constitution — of  the  American  union,  vanished  into  thin 
air.  This  must  be  the  inevitable  result,  unless,  by  a  treaty  with 
Mexico,  the  south  can  add  more  weight  to  her  end  of  the  lever !  Let 
the  south  stop  at  the  Sabine,  (the  eastern  boundary  of  Texas,)  while  the 
north  may  spread  unchecked  beyond  the  Rocky  Mountains,  arid  the 
sozUhern  scale  must  kick  the  beam.'''' 

Mr.  Gilmer,  a  member  of  congress,  and  formerly  governor  of  Vir- 


ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS.  787 

ginia,  wrote  in  January,  1842,  to  a  friend:  ''  Having  acquired  Louisi- 
ana and  Florida,  we  have  an  interest  and  a  frontier  on  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  and  along  our  interior  to  the  Pacific,  which  will  not  permit  us 
to  close  our  eyes  or  fold  our  arms  with  indifference  to  the  events  which 
a  few  years  may  disclose  in  that  quarter.  We  have  already  had  one 
question  of  boundary  with  Texas ;  other  questions  must  soon  arrive, 
under  our  revenue  laws,  and  on  other  points  of  necessary  intercourse, 
which  it  will  be  difficult  to  adjust.  The  institutions  of  Texas,  ajid  her 
relations  with  other  governments,  are  yet  in  that  condition  which 
inclines  her  people  (who  are  our  countrymen)  to  unite  their  destinies 
with  ours.     This  must  be  done  soon,  or  not  at  alV 

Ecsolutions  of  the  legislature  of  Alabama  in  favor  of  annexation  had 
been  communicated  to  congress  in  1843.  And  in  the  legislature  of 
South  Carolina,  resolutions  were  proposed,  asserting  that  Texas  was 
already  a  part  of  the  union. 

President  Tyler,  in  his  annual  message  of  December,  1843,  intimated 
a  strong  disposition  to  interpose  by  force  to  put  an  end  to  the  war 
between  Texas  and  Mexico.  The  United  States,  he  said,  had  an  imme- 
diate interest  in  the  matter.  Texas  had  for  eight  years  maintained  her 
independence,  which  had  been  recognized  by  other  powers;  and  the 
parent  state  ought  so  to  regard  and  recognize  hers;  in  doing  which, 
Mexico  would  follow  the  example  of  Great  Britain  in  respect  to  the 
United  States.  Texas  was  at  the  same  time  making  movements  towards 
annexation.  Resolutions,  and  also  a  bill  for  this  purpose,  were  intro- 
duced into  the  legislature.  And  it  soon  appeared  that  although  the 
object  was  not  made  public,  negotiation  was  in  progress.  It  was  stated 
in  a  Texas  paper,  that  the  opinion  which  had  been  there  entertained, 
that  president  Tyler  was  secretly  in  favor  of  annexation,  had  proved  to 
be  correct.  Despatches  lately  sent  to  the  United  States  related  to  this 
subject.  It  appeared,  so  said  the  paper,  that  Mr.  Upshur,  the  American 
secretary"  of  state,  had  proposed  to  Mr.  Van  Zandt,  the  Texas  charge 
at  Washington,  to  open  a  negotiation  for  annexing  Texas  to  the  union. 
This  proved  to  be  true.  Mr.  Webster  resigned  the  office  of  secretary 
of  state  in  May,  1843.  No  negotiation  seems  to  have  been  attempted 
while  he  was  in  office.  He  was  known  to  be  opposed  to  the  annexation. 
Mr.  Upshur  was  appointed  in  June  following.  On  the  27tn  of  April, 
1844,  notwithstanding  the  injunctions  of  secrecy  upon  the  action  of  the 
senate,  the  New  York  Evening  Post  announced  the  conclusion  of  a 
treaty  for  the  annexation  of  Texas,  which  was  then  pending  in  the  sen- 
ate, and  contained  the  president's  message  and  documents  which  accom- 
panied it.  The  treaty  had  been  concluded  at  Washington  on  the  12th 
of  April,  by  John  C.  Calhoun,  secretary  of  state,  on  the  part  of  the 


788  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

United  States,  and  Isaac  Van  Zandt,  and  J.  Pinckney  Henderson  on 
the  part  of  Texas,  and  communicated  to  the  senate  on  the  22d,  and 
ordered  to  be  printed  in  confidence  for  the  use  of  the  senate. 

From  the  correspondence  accompanying  the  message,  it  would  seem 
that  the  fresh  impulse  given  to  the  annexation  movement  on  the  part 
of  our  government,  was  the  apprehension  that  G-reat  Britain  was  about 
to  enter  into  a  negotiation  with  the  opponents  of  slavery  in  Texas,  which 
contemplated  its  abolition  in  that  country.  This  apprehension  pur- 
ported to  be  founded  on  a  letter  from  a  private  citizen  of  the  United 
States  in  London,  stating  that  a  Mr.  Andrews,  deputed  by  the  Texas 
abolitionists,  was  then  there  for  that  purpose.  The  project  was  said  to 
be,  that  money  was  to  be  advanced  by  a  company  to  be  organized  in 
England,  to  purchase  the  slaves  in  Texas,  and  lands  were  to  be  taken  in 
payment  for  the  money  thus  advanced.  Mr.  Upshur,  in  his  letter  of  the 
8th  of  August,  1843,  to  Mr.  Murphy,  our  charg6  in  Texas,  after  having 
made  the  above  statement,  says,  "  a  movement  of  this  sort  can  not  be 
contemplated  by  us  in  silence ;"  and  he  states  as  a  reason,  that  it  was 
not  to  be  supposed  that  the  design  of  England  was  limited  to  the  eman- 
cipation of  a  few  thousand  slaves  in  Texas ;  but  that  it  was  a  part  of 
her  plan  "  to  seek  to  abolish  slavery  throughout  the  entire  continent 
and  islands  of  America."  As  sugar  and  cotton  could  be  raised  cheaper 
by  slave  labor  than  by  the  labor  of  white  men.  Great  Britain  desired  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  Texas,  and  Brazil,  in  order 
to  create  a  market  for  the  productions  of  her  East  and  West  India  colo- 
nies. It  was  stated,  also,  that  Texas  would  afford  a  shelter  for  fugitive 
slaves.  In  view  of  these  and  other  reasons  given  in  his  letter,  he  presses 
the  subject  upon  the  attention  of  Mr.  Murphy. 

Mr.  Murphy,  in  his  answer,  dated  September  23  and  24,  1843,  having 
given  some  account  of  this  Mr.  Andrews,  says  he  had,  on  his  return 
from  London  to  Texas,  been  driven  away  by  force.  The  letter  says 
also :  "  But  the  negotiation  now  on  foot  between  Texas  and  Mexico, 
through  the  medium,  or  rather  under  the  control,  of  Great  Britain,  has 
changed  entirely  the  whole  character  of  affairs,  and  demands  the  most 
prompt  and  energetic  action  of  the  government  of  the  United  States;" 
and  he  advises  that  immediate  steps  be  taken  for  the  safety  of  our 
"  domestic  institutions."  Simultaneously  with  the  date  of  the  above 
letters  from  Mr.  Murphy,  September  23,  Mr.  Upshur  writes  again  to 
Mr.  Murphy,  expr-essing  the  deep  concern  of  the  president  in  regard  to 
the  policy  of  England,  and  requests  Mr.  Murphy  to  communicate  fully 
and  freely  with  Mr.  Thompson,  our  minister  in  Mexico.  He  also 
expresses  fears  that  the  British  are  endeavoring  to  obtain  control  of  the 
gulf  of  Mexico,  and  urges  the  most  untiring  vigilance  of  the  movements 


ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS.  789 

of  that  government.  He  had  already  written  (September  21,)  to  Mr. 
Everett,  our  minister  at  London,  expressing  the  same  alarm,  and  direct- 
ing him  to  use  all  diligence  in  obtaining  information  on  the  subject. 
And  on  the  28th  he  wrote  again  to  Mr.  Everett,  (confidentially,)  saying 
it  was  "  impossible  to  suppose  that  England  was  actuated  by  a  mere 
feeling  of  philanthrophy  ;"  and  he  argues  the  necessity  of  slave  labor  in 
the  production  of  sugar,  cotton,  and  rice,  the  physical  constitution  of 
the  African  being  much  better  adapted  to  tropical  climates  than  that  of 
the  European.  Their  condition  also  would  be  made  worse  by  emanci- 
pation. If  Texas  was  a  free  state,  the  slaves  of  the  South  would  only 
have  to  cross  the  Sabine  or  the  Ked  River,  and  they  would  find  them- 
selves freemen. 

Mr.  Everett,  in  his  answer,  November  3,  1843,  says  he  was  told  by 
lord  Aberdeen,  that  "  the  suggestion  that  England  had  made  or  intended 
to  make  the  abolition  of  slavery  the  condition  of  any  treaty  arrange- 
ment with  Texas,  was  wholly  without  foundation."  General  Hamilton, 
a  commissioner  from  Texas, had  applied  for  a  loan  to  Texas  to  be  used 
to  aid  her  in  obtaining  from  Mexico  the  recognition  of  her  independence, 
but  his  proposal  had  been  declined.  It  however  had  no  connection  with 
the  abolition  of  slavery.  Among  the  correspondence  there  is  also  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Pakenham,  British  minister  at  Washington,  inclosing 
a  letter  from  Lord  Aberdeen,  dated  December  26,  1843,  disavowing  any 
design  on  the  part  of  that  government  to  interfere  in  the  matter  of 
slavery.  He  says  :  "  Much  as  we  should  wish  to  see  the  slaveholding 
states  placed  on  the  firm  and  solid  footing  which  we  believe  is  to  be 
obtained  by  general  freedom  alone,  we  have  never  in  our  treatment  of 
them  made  any  difference  between  the  slaveholding  and  free  states  of 
the  union.  *  *  *  Although  we  shall  not  desist  from  those  open 
and  honest  efforts  which  we  have  constantly  made  for  procuring  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  throughout  the  world,  we  shall  neither  openly  nor 
secretly,"  &c. 

Delicately  as  the  noble  lord  expressed  the  disapprobation  of  his  govern- 
ment of  slavery,  and  their  determination  to  continue  open  and  honest 
efforts  to  procure  its  abolition,  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  a  reply  to  Mr.  Paken- 
ham, takes  exception  to  this  avowal, by  Grreat  Britain,  that  it  was  "her 
settled  policy  and  the  object  of  her  constant  exertions  to  abolish  slavery 
throughout  the  world."  The  president,  he  said,  regarded  with  still 
deeper  concern  the  avowal  of  the  desire  of  Great  Britain  to  see  slavery 
abolished  in  Texas.  And  Mr.  Calhoun  tells  Mr.  Pakenham,  "  that  the 
consummation  of  her  (Great  Britain's)  wishes  in  reference  to  Texas, 
would  be  followed  by  hostile  feelings  and  relations  between  that  coun- 
try (Texas)  and  the  United  States,  which  could  not  fail  to  place  her 


790  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

under  the  influence  and  control  of  Great  Britain."  This,  he  says, 
"  from  the  geographical  position  of  Texas,  would  expose  the  weakest 
and  most  vulnerable  portion  of  our  frontier  to  inroads,  and  place  in  the 
power  of  Great  Britain  the  most  effectual  means  of  effecting  in  the 
neighboring  states  of  this  union  what  she  avows  to  be  her  desire  to  do 
in  all  the  countries  where  slavery  exists."  And  he  informs  Mr.  Paken- 
ham  that  the  general  government,  acting  in  obedience  to  its  obligation 
to  protect  the  states  against  danger,  had  already  concluded  a  treaty  with 
Texas  for  her  annexation  to  the  union  !  He  then  undertakes  to  con- 
vince Mr.  P.  that  the  African  race  in  this  country  are  in  a  better  con- 
dition as  slaves  than  they  would  be  if  free,  and  that  it  would  be  far  from 
wise  or  humane — indeed  it  would  be  "  the  greatest  calamity  to  the  race" 
to  change  their  condition.  But  we  may  not  pursue  this  sketch  of  the 
correspondence  on  this  subject. 

On  the  8th  of  June,  the  question  was  taken  in  the  senate  on  the  rati- 
fication of  the  treaty,  a  majority  of  two-thirds  being  necessary  to  ratify. 
Only  16  senators  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  25  in  the  negative.  Of 
the  senators  from  the  free  states  who  voted  for  the  treaty,  were  Messrs. 
Buchanan  and  Sturgeon,  of  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  Breese,  of  Illinois,  and 
Mr.  Woodbury,  of  New  Hampshire.  Of  the  democrats  from  the  free 
states  who  voted  against  the  treaty,  were  Mr.  Fairfield,  of  Maine,  Mr. 
Atherton,  of  New  Hampshire,  Mr.  Niles,  of  Connecticut,  Mr.  Wright, 
of  New  York,  Messrs.  Allen  and  Tappan,  of  Ohio,  and  Mr.  Benton,  of 
Missouri,  a  slave  state. 

The  vote  on  the  question  of  ratification  does  not,  however,  indicate 
the  views  of  senators  on  the  abstract  question  of  annexation.  One 
objection  to  the  treaty  was,  that  it  would  involve  the  United  States  in 
a  war  with  Mexico.  Another  was,  that  Texas  claimed  disputed  terri- 
tory ;  and  to  receive  Texas  would  compel  our  government  to  defend  the 
claim  against  Mexico.  It  was  also  objected,  that  annexation  was  uncon- 
stitutional. 

In  the  debate  in  secret  session  on  the  ratification,  a  large  number  of 
senators  took  part ;  among  whom  were  Messrs.  Benton,  Choate,  Wright, 
Walker  and  M'Duffie;  the  two  last  in  favor  of  the  treaty;  the  others 
in  opposition. 

Mr.  Benton's  great  speech  was  delivered  on  the  16th,  17th,  and  20th 
of  May,  and  was  in  support  of  resolutions  offered  by  him  on  the  13th, 
declaring, 

1  St.  That  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  would  be  the  adoption  of  the 
Texian  war  with  Mexico,  and  would  devolve  its  conclusion  upon  the 
United  States. 

2d.  That  the  treaty-making  power  does  not  extend  to   the  power  of 


ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS.  791 

making  war,  and  that  the  president  and  senate  have  no  right  to  make 
war,  either  by  declaration  or  adoption. 

3d.  That  Texas  ought  to  be  reunited  to  the  American  union,  as  soon 
as  it  can  be  done  with  the  consent  of  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  and  of  Texas,  and  when  Mexico  shall  either  consent  to 
the  same,  or  acknowledge  the  independence  of  Texas,  or  cease  to  prose- 
cute the  war  against  her,  (the  armistice  having  expired,)  on  a  scale  com- 
mensurate to  the  conquest  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Benton  contended  that  the  treaty  proposed  to  annex  much  more 
territory  than  originally  belonged  to  Texas ;  and  therefore  the  proposi- 
tion for  the  "  reannexation  of  Texas'''  was  a  fraud  in  words.  It  was 
not  pretended,  even  by  those  who  used  that  word,  that  the  province  of 
Texas,  when  it  was  ceded  in  1819  to  Spain,  extended  farther  than  the 
boundaries  included  between  the  Sabine  and  the  Rio  del  Norte,  and  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico  and  the  Red  River,  whilst  the  republic  of  Texas,  as 
defined  in  the  treaty,  included  the  whole  extent  of  the  Rio  del  Norte 
and  embraced  portions  of  the  department  of  New  Mexico  with  its  capi 
tal,  being  many  hundreds  of  miles  of  a  neighbor's  dominion,  with  whom 
we  had  treaties  of  peace  and  friendship  and  commerce — a  territory 
where  no  Texian  force  had  ever  penetrated,  and  including  towns  and  vil- 
lages and  custom-houses  now  in  the  peaceful  possession  of  Mexico. 

In  a  message  to  the  senate  subsequent  to  that  accompanying  the  treaty, 
the  president  had  asserted  the  doctrine,  that  the  treaty  signed  by  him 
was  ratified  from  that  moment ;  and,  consequently,  that  part  of  Mexico 
above  mentioned  must  be  and  remain  "  reannexed,"  until  the  acquisition 
should  be  rejected  by  the  senate.  In  relation  to  this  Mr.  Benton  speaks 
thus  : 

"  The  president  in  his  special  message  of  Wednesday  last,  informs  us 
that  we  have  acquired  a  title  to  the  ceded  territory  by  his  signature  to 
the  treaty,  wanting  only  the  action  of  the  senate  to  perfect  it ;  and  that, 
in  the  mean  time,  he  will  protect  it  from  invasion,  and  for  that  purpose 
has  detached  all  the  disposable  portions  of  the  army  and  navy  to  the 
scene  of  action.  This  is  a  caper  about  equal  to  the  mad  freaks  with 
which  the  unfortunate  emperor  Paul,  of  Russia,  was  accustomed  to 
astonish  Europe  about  forty  years  ago.  By  this  declaration,  the  thirty 
thousand  Mexicans  in  the  left  half  of  the  valley  of  the  Rio  Del  Norte 
are  our  citizens,  and  standing,  in  the  language  of  the  president's  mes- 
sage, in  a  hostile  attitude  towards  us,  and  subject  to  be  repelled  as  in- 
vaders. Taos,  the  seat  of  the  custom-house,  where  our  caravans  enter 
their  goods,  is  ours ;  governor  Armijo  is  our  governor,  and  subject  to  be 
tried  foir  treason  if  he  does  not  submit  to  us ;  twenty  Mexican  towns  and 
villages  are  ours ;  and  their  peaceful  inhabitants,  cultivating  their  fielda 


792  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

and  tending  their  flocks,  are  suddenly  converted,  by  a  stroke  of  the  presi- 
dent's pen  into  American  citizens,  or  American  rebels.  This  is  too  bad : 
and,  instead  of  making  themselves  party  to  its  enormities,  as  the  presi- 
dent invites  them  to  do,  I  think  rather  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  senate 
to  wash  its  hands  of  all  this  part  of  the  transaction  by  a  special  disap- 
probation. The  senate  is  the  constitutional  adviser  of  the  president,  and 
has  the  right,  if  not  the  duty,  to  give  him  advice  when  the  occasion  re- 
quires it.  I  therefore  propose,  as  an  additional  resolution,  applicable  to 
the  Rio  del  Norte  boundary  only — the  one  which  I  will  read  and  send 
to  the  secretary's  table — and  on  which,  at  the  proper  time,  I  shall  ask 
the  vote  of  the  senate.     This  is  the  resolution : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  incorporation  of  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  del 
Norte  into  the  American  union,  by  virtue  of  a  treaty  with  Texas,  com- 
prehending as  the  said  incorporation  would  do,  a  part  of  the  Mexican 
departments  of  New  Mexico,  Chihuahua,  Coahuila,  and  Tamaulipas, 
would  be  an  act  of  direct  aggression  on  Mexico  ;  for  all  the  consequences 
of  which  the  United  States  would  stand  responsible." 

Having  shown  the  effect  of  the  treaty  on  the  Rio  Grande  frontier, 
Mr.  B.  took  up  the  treaty  itself,  under  all  its  aspects  and  in  its  whole 
extent,  and  assumed  four  positions  in  relation  to  it;  namely: 

1.  That  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  would  be,  of  itself,  war  between 
the  United  States  and  Mexico. 

2.  That  it  would  be  unjust  war. 

3.  That  it  would  be  war  unconstitutionally  made. 

4.  That  it  would  be  war  upon  a  weak  and  groundless  pretext." 

Mr.  M'Duffie,  on  the  23d  of  May,  replied  to  Mr.  Benton.  The  ques- 
tion as  to  boundary,  he  said,  had  been  exhausted  by  the  conclusive 
argument  of  Mr.  Walker,  of  Mississippi,  and  he  would  not  discuss  it. 
It  had  been  contended  by  senators,  that  the  ratification  of  the  treaty 
would  subject  us  to  the  charge  of  a  violation  of  the  public  faith.  In 
answer  to  this  objection,  Mr.  M'Dufl&e  referred  to  the  case  of  France,  in 
1778.  When  the  United  States  were  waging  an  unequal  war  with 
Great  Britain,  she  came  to  our  aid,  recognized  our  independence,  and 
formed  with  us  a  treaty  of  alliance  offensive  and  defensive.  Had  any 
historian  mentioned  this  as  a  breach  of  national  faith  on  the  part  of 
France  ?  Had  our  government  contracted  such  an  alliance  with  Texas 
when  Santa  Anna  was  marching  to  meet  a  disgraceful  defeat  at  San 
Jacinto,  it  would  have  violated  no  national  faith,  nor  any  dictate  of 
international  law.  He  contended  that  she  had  maintained  her  indepen- 
dence ;  we  had  recognized  it :  so  had  Great  Britain,  France,  Holland, 
and  Belgium.  She  possessed  all  the  attributes  of  national  sovereignty, 
and  the  elements  of   self-government,  more   so  than   Mexico  herself. 


ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS.  793 

Texas,  he  said,  had  a  right  to  enter  into  a  treaty  of  annexation  if  she 
chose ;  and  who  would  deny  her  that  right  ?  Could  she  not  dispose  of 
herself,  as  she  pleased  ?  And  did  it  not  follow  that  the  United  States 
had  a  corresponding  and  an  equal  right  to  receive  her  ?  The  right  of 
property  implied  the  right  of  the  proprietor  to  sell,  and  the  correlative 
right  of  every  other  person  to  purchase. 

But  it  was  said  the  ratification  would  involve  us  in  a  war  with  Mexico. 
So  he  himself  thought  in  1836,  when  Texas  was  a  "  rebellious  province ;" 
but  since  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto,  Mexico  had  not  made  a  single  mili- 
tary movement  toward  recovering  her  lost  dominions.  She  had  done 
nothing  that  deserved  the  name  of  war.  Appealing  to  the  gasconading 
proclamation  of  Mexico,  the  senator  from  Missouri  had  asked,  ''  Is  this 
peace  ?"  The  orders  to  the  home  squadron,  and  the  army  of  observa- 
tion sent  to  the  Sabine,  to  watch  the  movements  of  Mexico,  should  any 
be  made,  and  promptly  report  them  to  head  quarters,  that  they  might 
as  promptly  be  reported  to  congress,  the  senator  had  pronounced  an  act 
of  war.  If  to  employ  a  corps  of  observation  was  to  make  war,  then  we 
were  at  war  with  the  powers  in  the  West  Indies,  on  the  Mediterranean, 
and  on  the  coast  of  Africa ;  for  we  had  squadrons  in  every  sea  to  pro- 
tect our  commerce,  and  to  make  war  on  pirates.  The  proclamations  of 
Mexico,  and  the  counter  proclamations  and  defiances  of  Texas,  he  did 
not  consider  war,  as  did  the  senators  on  the  other  side. 

Mr.  M'Duffie  referred  to  the  proposition  to  Mexico  made  by  Mr.  Clay, 
when  secretary  of  state  under  Mr.  Adams,  in  1825,  to  purchase  Texas, 
when  the  war  between  Spain  and  Mexico  was  still  in  existence.  So  in 
1829,  when  Mexico  was  invaded  by  a  large  army,  and  her  ports  were 
blockaded,  Mr.  Van  Buren,  by  order  of  Gen.  Jackson,  made  to  Mexico 
a  proposition  to  purchase  Texas. 

Having  advocated  the  right  to  receive  Texas,  he  proceeded  to  show 
the  duty  of  making  the  treaty.  Great  Britain  should  not  be  allowed 
to  obtain  the  control  of  Texas  by  a  treaty  of  guaranty  stipulating  for 
extensive  commercial  privileges.  He  had  never  till  now  realized  the 
justice  of  Mr.  Monroe's  declaration,  that  no  European  power  must  ever 
be  permitted  to  establish  a  colony  on  this  continent.  And  he  urged  the 
danger  to  the  slave  property  of  the  south,  if  Great  Britain  should  get 
control  of  Texas.  They  had  a  right  to  demand  from  the  government 
protection  to  their  property.  Annexation,  too,  would  operate  as  a 
safety-valve  to  let  off  their  superabundant  slave  population,  which  would 
render  them  more  happy,  and  the  whites  more  secure.  And  with  regard 
to  the  time  of  annexation,  he  adopted  the  language  of  Gen.  Jackson, 
"  now  or  never." 

Immediately  after  the  treaty  was  rejected,  Mr.  Benton  gave  notice  of 


794  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

a  bill  for  the  annexation  of  Texas,  with  the  consent  of  Mexico.  On  the 
10th  of  April,  pursuant  to  notice,  he  brought  in  thft  bill,  which  autho- 
rized and  advised  the  president  to  open  negotiations  with  Mexico  and 
Texas  for  adjusting  boundaries,  and  annexing  Texas  to  the  United 
States,  on  the  following  bases: 

1st.  The  boundary  to  be  in  the  desert  prairie  west  of  the  Nueces,  and 
along  the  highlands  and  mountain  heights  which  divide  the  waters  of 
the  Mississippi  from  those  of  the  Rio  del  Norte,  and  to  latitude  42 
degrees  north. 

2d.  The  people  of  Texas,  by  a  legislative  act  or  otherwise,  to  express 
their  assent  to  annexation. 

3d.  A  state  to  be  called  "  Texas,"  with  boundaries  fixed  by  herself, 
and  an  extent  not  exceeding  that  of  the  largest  state  in  the  union,  to  be 
admitted  into  the  union  by  virtue  of  this  act,  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  states. 

4th.  The  remainder  of  the  territory,  to  be  called  "  The  South-west 
Territory,"  and  to  be  held  and  disposed  of  by  the  United  States  as  one 
of  their  territories. 

5th.  Slavery  to  be  forever  prohibited  in  the  northern  half  of  the 
annexed  territory. 

6th.  The  assent  of  Mexico  to  such  annexation  and  boundary  to  be 
obtained  by  treaty,  or  to  be  dispensed  with  when  congress  may  deem  such 
assent  unnecessary. 

7th.  Other  details  to  be  adjusted  by  treaty  so  far  as  they  may  come 
within  the  scope  of  the  treaty-making  power. 

On  presenting  his  bill,  Mr.  Benton  spoke  nearly  two  hours.  He  said 
his  was  not  a  new  burst  of  affection  for  the  possession  of  the  country,  as 
his  writings  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  would  testify.  He  disapproved 
the  course  of  the  executive  in  not  haviiDg  first  consulted  congress.  The 
rejection  of  the  treaty  having  wiped  out  all  cause  of  offense  to  Mexico, 
he  thought  it  best  to  commence  again,  and  at  the  right  end — with  the 
legislative  branch,  by  which  means  we  should  proceed  regularly  and  con- 
stitutionally. As  to  the  boundary,  he  had  followed  the  basis  laid  down 
by  Jefferson,  fixing,  as  the  limit  to  be  adopted  in  settling  the  boundary 
with  Spain,  all  the  territory  watered  by  the  tributaries  to  the  Missis- 
sippi, and  had  made  it  applicable  to  Mexico  and  Texas.  He  did  not 
attach  so  much  importance  to  the  consent  of  Mexico  as  to  make  it  an 
indispensable  condition,  yet  he  regarded  it  as  something  to  be  respect- 
fully sought  for.  But  if  it  were  not  obtained,  it  was  left  to  the  house 
to  say  when  that  consent  became  unnecessary.  He  wished  to  continue 
in  amity  with  Mexico.  Those  who  underrated  the  value  of  a  good 
understanding  with  her,  knew  nothing  of  what  they  spoke.     Mexico 


ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS.  795 

took  the  products  of  our  farms,  and  returned  the  solid  silver  of  her 
mines.  Our  trade  with  her  was  constantly  increasing.  In  1821,  the 
year  in  which  she  became  independent,  we  received  from  her  $80,000  ; 
in  1835,  $8,500,000.  When  we  began  to  sympathize  with  Texas,  this 
trade  rapidly  fell  off,  until  it  got  down  to  one  million  and  a  half.  As 
the  earliest  and  most  consistent  friend  of  Texas,  he  desired  peace  with 
Mexico,  in  order  to  procure  the  ultimate  annexation  of  Texas.  If  Mex- 
ico, blind  to  her  interests,  should  refuse  to  let  Texas  take  her  natural 
position  as  a  part  of  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  let  congress  say  in 
what  case  the  consent  of  Mexico  might  cease  to  be  necessary. 

Mr.  Benton  severely  censured  that  partj^  who,  while  an  armistice  was 
subsisting  between  Mexico  and  Texas,  which  bid  fair  to  lead  to  peace, 
rushed  in  with  a  firebrand  to  disturb  these  relations  of  amity.  For  this 
act  they  must  stand  condemned  in  the  eyes  of  Christendom.  Every 
wise  man  must  see  that  Texas  and  Mexico  were  not  naturally  parts  of 
a  common  country.  The  settlements  of  Mexico  had  never  taken  the 
direction  of  Texas.  In  a  north-eastern  direction,  they  had  not  extended 
much  over  the  Rio  Grande ;  they  had  come  merely  to  the  pastoral 
regions,  but  had  never  professed  strength  enough  to  subdue  the  sugar  and 
cotton  sections.  He  alluded  to  his  own  far  back  prophecies  and  writings 
concerning  Texas.  Messrs.  Walker  and  Woodbury  he  termed  "  Texas 
neophytes,"  who  had  been  so  anxious  to  make  great  demonstrations  of 
love  for  Texas.  For  himself  he  had  no  such  anxiety,  because  his  senti- 
ments had  always  been  known.  With  him  it  was  not  a  question  "  now 
or  never,"  but  Texas  then,  now,  and  always. 

Mr.  Benton  said  he  had  provided  against  another  Missouri  agitation. 
For  those  who  regarded  slavery  as  a  great  moral  evil,  in  which  he,  per- 
haps, did  not  differ  much  from  them,  there  was  a  provision  which  would 
neutralize  the  slave  influence.  He  would  not  join  the  fanatics  on  either 
side — those  who  were  running  a  muck  for  or  against  slavery. 

Mr.  M'Duffie  replied  to  Mr.  Benton  in  a  long,  desultory  speech,  appa- 
rently intended  rather  to  provoke  by  satire  or  irony,  and  to  excite  laugh- 
ter, than  to  convince  by  argument.  He  remarked  at  the  conclusion  of 
his  speech,  that  the  bill  of  Mr.  Benton  was  as  likely  as  the  treaty  to 
bring  us  into  a  war  with  Mexico. 

Mr.  Benton,  rising  immediately,  exclaimed,  "  But  with  this  great 
difference  !  this  great  difference  !  that  my  bill  refers  the  question  of  war 
with  Mexico  to  congress,  where  all  questions  of  war  belong,  and  the 
negotiators  of  this  treaty  made  war  themselves !  They,  the  president 
and  his  secretary  of  state,  made  the  war  themselves,  and  made  it  uncon- 
stitutionally, perfidiously,  clandestinely,  and  piratically.  The  secret 
orders  to  our  array  and  navy  were  piratical ;  for  they  were  without  law. 


796  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

and  to  waylay  and  attack  a  friendly  power  with  whom  we  have  a  treaty 
of  amity ;  and  as  a  member  of  a  court  martial,  I  would  sentence  to  be 
shot  any  oflScer  of  the  army  and  navy  who  should  dare  to  attack  Mexican 
troops,  or  ships,  or  cities,  under  that  order.  Officers  are  to  obey  lawful 
orders,  and  no  others ;  and  they  are  not  to  make  war  by  virtue  of  any 
presidential  orders,  until  congress  has  declared  it."  Mr.  B.  proceeded 
at  some  length  to  contrast  his  bill  with  the  treaty,  from  which,  he  said, 
it  was  as  different  as  light  from  darkness.  It  was  respectful  to  Mexico, 
requiring  her  to  be  consulted  before,  not  after  the  treaty.  It  assumed 
her  consent  to  be  necessary  now,  in  the  present  state  of  the  question 
between  her  and  Texas ;  but  it  supposed  a  time  when  it  would  not  be 
necessary,  and  of  which  congress  was  to  judge.  The  ratification  of  the 
treaty  would  have  been  the  adoption,  by  the  senate,  of  the  war  made  by 
the  president  and  secretary. 

Mr.  M'Duffie  had  taken  exception  to  Mr.  Benton's  application  of  the 
word  neophyte  to  the  new  friends  of  Texas.  Mr.  B.  here  indulged  in 
a  strain  of  mingled  humor  and  satire.  "  The  word  can  imply  nothing 
offensive  or  derogatory.  It  is,  indeed,  a  chaste  and  classic  phrase, 
known  to  the  best  writers,  both  sacred  and  profane.  St.  Paul  uses  it  in 
his  epistles,  (the  Greek  copies;)  and,  after  naming  him,  no  higher 
authority  is  wanted  for  what  is  gentlemanly  and  scholastic,  as  well  as 
what  is  pious  and  Christian ;  but  bring  me  a  dictionary,  (speaking  to  a 
page  of  the  senate;)  bring  me  Richardson,  letter  N,  and  see  what  he 
says." 

The  book  was  brought.     Mr.  B.  read  : 

"  Neophyte — In  French,  neophyte ;  in  Italian,  neofito ;  in  Spanish, 
neophyto ;  Latin,  neophytus ;  Greek,  neophutos ;  from  neos,  new,  and 
phuton,  a  plant,  a  new  plant ;  figuratively,  a  new  convert ;  one  newly  im- 
planted (s.  c.)  in  the  church;  and  consequently,  newly  converted  to  the 
Christian  faith;  one  newly  initiated,  newly  introduced  or  employed." 

"This  (resumed  Mr.  B.)  is  Richardson's  definition  and  etymology ; 
and  nothing  can  be  more  classic  or  innocent.  It  is  pure  Greek,  only 
modified  in  sound  and  termination,  in  going  through  six  languages ;  and, 
both  literally  and  figuratively,  has  an  innocent  and  decent  signification." 

After  some  farther  play  upon  the  meaning  and  application  of  this 
word,  he  proceeds:  ''But  to  be  done  with  joking.  The  senator  is  cer- 
tainly a  new  plant,  and  an  exotic,  in  the  Texan  garden ;  and  those 
friends  of  his,  the  defense  of  whom  has  called  him  from  a  sick  bed  to 
do  what  he  has  not  done,  defend  them — a  task  which  would  indeed  re- 
quire '  angels  and  ministers  of  grace,'  these  friends  of  his,  they  are  also 
new  plants  and  exotics  and  strange  plants  in  the  same  good  garden ;  and 
of  them  I  must  say,  moreover,  what  I  cannot  and  will  not  say  of  him — 


ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS.  797 

they  are  intrusive,  noxious,  and  poisonous  weeds  in  that  fair  garden  !  I 
remember  the  time  when  they  flung  the  whole  garden,  as  a  worthless 
incumbrance,  away.  And  they  enter  it  now,  as  the  serpent  did  Eden, 
with  deceit  in  the  face  and  death  in  the  heart." 

Mr.  Benton  then  proceeds  to  the  discussion  of  the  treaty  ;  and  in  the 
course  of  his  remarks,  says :  "  The  senator  undertakes  to  answer  my 
speech,  but  he  avoids  all  the  hard  places.  He  says  nothing  of  the  two 
thousand  miles  of  Mexican  territory,  (over  and  above  Texas,  and  to 
which  no  Texian  soldier  ever  went,  except  to  be  killed  or  captured,)  and 
which,  by  the  treaty  is  annexed  to  the  United  States.  He  says  nothing 
about  the  private  engagement  for  war  against  Mexico,  and  sending  our 
troops  to  join  president  Houston.  He  says  nothing  about  this  open 
assumption  of  the  purse  and  the  sword;  nothing  about  the  admission 
of  new  states  by  treaty,  without  the  consent  of  congress ;  nothing  about 
the  loss  of  Mexican  commerce,  and  the  alienation  of  all  the  South  Ameri- 
can states  from  our  cause ;  nothing  about  the  breach  of  the  armistice, 
and  breach  of  treaties  with  a  friendly  power ;  nothing  about  the  Duff 
Green  stories  for  making  pretexts  for  predetermined  conclusions ;  no- 
thing, in  fact,  to  the  pregnant  indications  which  show  that  the  treaty  was 
made,  not  to  get  Texas  into  the  union,  but  to  get  the  south  out  of  it. 
He  defends  the  feelings,  not  the  doings  of  his  friends.  The  great  ob- 
jections to  the  treaty  are  in  its  encroachments  upon  New  Mexico, 
Chihuahua,  Coahuila,  and  Tamaulipas ;  in  its  adoption  of  the  Texian 
war ;  in  its  adoption  of  that  war  unconstitutionally ;  in  its  destruction 
of  our  trade  with  Mexico;  in  our  breach  of  treaties,  in  the  alienation 
of  Mexico  and  all  the  South  American  states  from  us,  our  permanent 
loss  of  trade  and  friendship  with  those  powers ;  and  the  seeds  of  disunion 
(dissolution  of  our  union)  so  carefully  and  so  thickly  planted  in  it. 
Above  all,  he  says  nothing  to  the  great  objection  to  admitting  new  states 
by  treaty — an  act  which  congress  only  can  do.  These  are  the  great  ob- 
jections to  the  treaty;  and  all  these  the  defender  of  the  president  and 
his  secretary  leaves  undefended. 

*  *  *  "The  senator  from  South  Carolina,  in  his  zeal  to  defend  his 
friends,  goes  beyond  the  line  of  defense  and  attacks  me ;  he  supposes  me 
to  have  made  an ti- annexation  speeches;  and  certainly,  if  he  limits  the 
supposition  to  my  speeches  against  the  treaty,  he  is  right.  But  that 
treaty,  far  from  securing  the  annexation  of  Texas,  only  provides  for  the 
disunion  of  these  states.  The  annexation  of  the  whole  country  as  a 
territory,  and  that  upon  the  avowed  ground  of  laying  it  all  out  into 
slave  states,  is  an  open  preparation  for  a  Missouri  question  and  a  disso- 
lution of  the  union.  I  am  against  that ;  and  for  annexation  in  the  mode 
pointed  out  in  my  bill.     I  am  for  Texas — for  Texas  with  peace  and 


798  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

honor,  and  with  the  union.  Those  who  want  annexation  on  these  terms 
should  support  my  bill;  those  who  want  it  without  peace,  without  honor, 
and  without  the  union,  should  stick  to  the  lifeless  corpse  of  the  defunct 
treaty," 

The  president,  having  been  foiled  in  his  scheme  of  annexation  by 
treaty,  appealed  to  the  house  of  representatives,  in  a  message,  dated  the 
10th  of  June,  two  days  after  the  rejection  of  the  treaty,  accompanied  by 
the  rejected  treaty  with  the  correspondence  and  documents  which  had 
been  submitted  to  the  senate.  The  president  says  in  the  message,  that 
he  does  not  perceive  the  force  of  the  objections  of  the  senate  to  the 
ratification.  Negotiations  with  Mexico,  in  advance  of  annexation,  would 
not  only  prove  abortive,  but  might  be  regarded  as  ofi'ensive  to  Mexico 
and  insulting  to  Texas.  We  could  not  negotiate  with  Mexico  for  Texas, 
without  admitting  that  our  recognition  of  her  independence  was  fraudu- 
lent, delusive,  or  void.  Only  after  acquiring  Texas,  could  the  question 
of  boundary  arise  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico,  a  question 
purposely  left  open  for  negotiation  with  Mexico,  as  affording  the  best 
opportunity  for  the  most  friendly  and  pacific  arrangements.  He  asserted 
that  Texas  no  longer  owed  allegiance  to  Mexico  ;  she  was,  and  had  been 
for  eight  years,  independent  of  the  confederation  of  Mexican  republics. 
Nor  could  we  be  accused  of  violating  treaty  stipulations.  Our  treaty 
with  Mexico  was  merely  commercial,  intended  to  define  the  rights  and 
secure  the  interests  of  the  citizens  of  each  country.  There  was  no  bad 
faith  in  negotiating  with  an  independent  power  upon  any  subject  not 
violating  the  stipulations  of  such  treaty. 

In  view  of  the  importance  of  the  subject,  he  invited  the  immediate 
attention  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  to  it ;  and  for  so  doing  he 
found  a  sufficient  apology  in  the  urgency  of  the  matter,  as  annexation 
would  encounter  great  hazard  of  defeat,  if  something  were  not  now  done 
to  prevent  it.  He  transmitted  to  the  house  a  number  of  private  letters 
on  the  subject,  from  citizens  of  Texas  entitled  to  confidence. 

Much  had  occurred  to  confirm  his  confidence  in  the  statements  of 
Gen.  Jackson,  and  of  his  own  statement  in  a  previous  message,  that 
"  instructions  had  already  been  given  by  the  TexaA  government  to  pro- 
pose to  the  government  of  Great  Britain  forthwith,  on  the  failure  of  the 
treaty,  to  enter  into  a  treaty  of  commerce,  and  an  alliance  ofi"ensive  and 
defensive."  He  also  referred  the  house  to  a  letter  from  Mr.  Everett 
from  London,  which  he  seemed  to  construe  into  an  intention  to  interfere 
with  the  contemplated  arrangement  between  the  United  States  and 
Texas.  Although  he  regarded  annexation  by  treaty  as  the  most  suita- 
ble form  in  which  it  could  be  effected,  should  congress  deem  it  proper 
to  resort  to  any  other  expedient  compatible  with  the  constitution,  and 


PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN    OF   1844.  799 

likely  to  accomplish  the  object,  he  was  prepared  to  yield  his  prompt  and 
active  cooperation.  He  says  :  "  The  question  is  not  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  it  shall  be  done,  but  whether  it  shall  be  accomplished  or  not. 
The  responsibility  of  deciding  this  question  is  now  devolved  upon  you." 

The  message  was  communicated  at  too  late  a  day  for  deliberation  and 
action  at  this  session.     Congress  adjourned  on  the  17th  of  June. 

On  the  28th  of  February  of  this  year,  (1844,)  vacancies  occurred  in 
the  offices  of  secretary  of  state  and  of  secretary  of  the  navy,  by  the  death 
of  Abel  P.  Upshur  and  Thomas  W.  Gilmer.  Captain  Stockton,  com- 
mander of  the  United  States  ship  Princeton,  had  been  occupied  in  pre- 
paring a  new  apparatus  for  war,  and  had  invited  a  large  number  of  per- 
sons to  witness  its  effects,  and  spend  the  day  on  board  his  ship.  Among 
the  guests  were  the  members  of  the  government  and  their  families.  On 
their  passage  down  the  Potomac,  one  of  the  large  guns,  carrying  a  ball 
of  225  pounds,  was  fired  several  times.  On  their  return  up  the  river, 
Captain  Stockton  consented  to  fire  another  shot,  which  burst  the  gun, 
and  killed  a  number  of  the  persons  on  board,  among  whom  were  the 
two  secretaries.  Mr.  Upshur  had  been  appointed  in  June,  1843,  as 
successor  to  Hugh  S.  Legare,  who  had  succeeded  Mr.  Webster,  and 
died  about  a  month  after  his  appointment.  Mr.  Calhoun  was  appointed 
in  the  place  of  Mr.  Upshur ;  and  John  Y.  Mason,  of  Virginia,  in  the 
place  of  Mr.  Gilmer.     [Note  N.] 


CHAPTER   LXV. 

THE    PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN    OF    1844. 

The  annexation  of  Texas  was  becoming  a  party  question.  As  such 
it  constituted  a  leading  issue  between  the  two  great  parties  at  the  pre- 
sidential election  of  this  year. 

The  persons  designated  by  public  sentiment  as  candidates  for  the  pre- 
sidency, were  Mr.  Van  Buren  and  Mr.  Clay.  The  place  appointed  for 
the  holding  of  the  nominating  conventions  was  Baltimore.  The  whig 
convention  was  to  take  place  on  the  1st  of  May;  that  of  the  democrats 
on  the  27th.  Agitated  as  the  public  mind  was  on  annexation,  the  posi- 
tion of  the  candidates  on  this  question  naturally  became  the  subject  of 
inquiry.  Mr.  Clay  having  received  several  letters  since  his  departure, 
in  December,  on  a  southern  tour,  requesting  an  expression  of  his  opinion 
upon  the  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States,  he 
addressed  to  the  editors  of  the  National  Intelligencer,  from  Raleigh 


800  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN 

North  Carolina,  a  letter  dated  April  17,  1844,  designed  as  an  answer 
to  the  various  communications  whieh  he  had  received. 

Mr.  Clay,  expressing  his  views  in  general  terms,  said :  "  If,  without 
the  loss  of  national  character,  without  the  hazard  of  foreign  war,  with 
the  general  concurrence  of  the  nation,  without  any  danger  to  the  integrity 
of  the  union,  and  without  giving  an  unreasonable  price  for  Texas,  the 
question  of  annexation  were  presented,  it  would  appear  in  quite  a  differ- 
ent light  from  that  in  which,  I  apprehend,  it  is  now  to  be  regarded," 

In  relation  to  the  acquisition  and  relinquishment  of  Texas,  he  says : 
"  The  United  States  acquired  a  title  to  Texas,  extending,  as  I  believe, 
to  the  Rio  del  Norte,  by  the  treaty  of  Louisiana.  They  ceded  and 
relinquished  that  title  to  Spain  by  the  treaty  of  1819,  by  which  the 
Sabine  was  substituted  for  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  our  western  boundary. 
This  treaty  was  negotiated  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Monroe, 
and  with  the  concurrence  of  his  cabinet,  of  which  Messrs.  Crawford, 
Calhoun,  and  Wirt,  being  a  majority,  all  southern  gentlemen,  composed 
a  part.  When  the  treaty  was  laid  before  the  house  of  representatives, 
being  a  member  of  that  body,  I  expressed  the  opinion.  Which  I  then 
entertained,  and  still  hold,  that  Texas  was  sacrificed  to  the  acquisition 
of  Florida.  We  wanted  Florida ;  but  I  thought  it  must,  from  its  posi- 
tion, inevitably  fall  into  our  possession ;  that  the  point  of  a  few  years 
sooner  or  later,  was  of  no  sort  of  consequence,  and  that  in  giving  five 
millions  of  dollars  and  Texas  for  it,  we  gave  more  than  a  just  equiva- 
lent. But  if  we  made  a  great  sacrifice  in  the  surrender  of  Texas,  we 
ought  to  take  care  not  to  make  too  great  a  sacrifice  in  the  attempt  to 
reacquire  it. 

'*  My  opinions  of  the  inexpediency  of  the  treaty  of  1819  did  not  pre- 
vail. The  country  and  congress  were  satisfied  with  it ;  appropriations 
were  made  to  carry  it  into  effect ;  the  line  of  the  Sabine  was  recogfiized 
by  us  as  our-  boundary,  in  negotiations  both  with  Spain  and  Mexico, 
after  Mexico  became  independent ;  and  measures  have  been  in  actual  pro- 
gress to  mark  the  line,  from  the  Sabine  to  Red  river,  and  thence  to  the 
Pacific  ocean.  We  have  thus  fairly  alienated  our  title  to  Texas,  by 
solemn  national  compacts,  to  the  fulfillment  of  which  we  stand  bound  by 
good  faith  and  national  honor.  It  is,  therefore,  perfectly  idle  and  ridi- 
culous, if  not  dishonorable,  to  talk  of  resuming  our  title  to  Texas,  as  if 
we  had  never  parted  with  it.  We  can  no  more  do  that  than  Spain  can 
resume  Florida,  France,  Louisiana,  or  Grisat  Britain  the  thirteen  colon- 
ies, now  composing  a  part  of  the  United  States. 

"  During  the  administration  of  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Poinsett,  minister  of 
the  United  States  at  Mexico,  was  instructed  by  me,  with  the  president's 
authority,  to  propose  a  re-purchase  of  Texas ;  but  he  forbore  even  to 


PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN    OF    1844.  801 

make  an  overture  for  that  purpose.  Upon  his  return  to  the  United 
States,  he  informed  me,  at  New  Orleans,  that  his  reason  for  not  making 
it  was,  that  he  knew  the  purchase  was  wholly  impracticable,  and  that 
he  was  persuaded  that,  if  he  made  the  overture,  it  would  have  no  other 
effect  than  to  aggravate  irritations,  already  existing,  upon  matters  of 
difference  between  the  two  countries." 

Mr.  Clay  said  the  revolt  of  Texas  had  been  greatly  aided  by  citizens 
of  the  United  States — in  a  manner,  and  to  an  extent  which  brought 
upon  us  the  reproach  of  an  impartial  world ;  and  we  ought  not  to  give 
occasion  for  the  imputation  of  having  instigated  and  aided  the  revolu- 
tion with  the  ultimate  view  of  territorial  aggrandizement.  Our  recog- 
nition of  the  independence  of  Texas,  had  not  affected  or  impaired  the 
rights  of  Mexico  ;  and  she  had  continued  to  assert  the  right  to  resubju- 
gate  Texas.  A  temporary  suspension  of  hostilities  had  been  agreed  on  ; 
but,  he  presumed,  with  the  purpose,  upon  the  termination  of  the  armis- 
tice, of  renewing  the  war  and  enforcing  what  she  considered  to  be  her 
rights.  And  if  Mexico  still  persevered  in  asserting  her  rights  by  actual 
force  of  arms,  our  government,  if  it  acquired  Texas,  would  also  acquire 
all  her  incumbrances,  and  among  them,  the  war  with  Mexico.  He 
"would  not  involve  the  country  in  a  war  for  the  acquisition  of  Texas. 
There  were  those  who  regarded  a  war  with  Mexico  with  indifference,  on 
account  of  her  weakness.  Justice  and  good  faith  were  equally  due  to  a 
weak  as  to  a  powerful  nation.  But  were  we  certain  that  the  contest 
would  be  with  Mexico  alone?  Had  we  any  security  that  countless 
foreign  vessels,  under  the  Mexican  flag,  would  not  prey  upon  our  defense- 
less commerce  in  the  Mexican  gulf,  or  on  the  Pacific  and  every  other 
ocean  and  sea  ?  Might  Mexico  obtain  no  allies  among  the  great  Euro- 
pean powers  ? 

Assuming  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  be  war  with  Mexico,  was  it 
competent  for  the  treaty-making  power  to  plunge  the  country  into  war, 
without  even  deigning  to  consult  congress,  to  which  alone  the  constitu- 
tion entrusts  the  power  to  declare  war  ? 

Another  objection  to  receiving  Texas  as  an  integral  part  of  the  union 
was,  that  it  would  be  in  decided  opposition  of  the  wishes  of  a  consider- 
able portion  of  the  confederacy.  He  thought  it  more  wise  to  harmonize 
the  confederacy  as  it  existed,  than  to  introduce  into  it  a  new  element 
of  discord  and  distraction.  Nor  did  he  think  the  framers  of  the  con- 
stitution contemplated  adding  to  the  union  foreign  territory  out  of 
which  new  states  were  to  be  formed.  So  Mr.  Jefferson  and  others  be- 
lieved. The  acquisition  of  Louisiana  and  Florida  might  be  defended 
upon  the  ground  of  their  peculiar  relation  to  the  United  States.  Nc 
such  necessity  existed  in  the  present  case. 

51 


802  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Mr.  Clay  said  there  were  those  who  favored  and  those  who  opposed 
the  annexation  of  Texas,  from  its-  supposed  effect  upon  the  balance  of 
political  power  between  two  great  sections  of  the  union.  He  discoun- 
tenanced the  motive  of  acquiring  territory  for  the  purpose  of  strengthen- 
ing one  part  of  the  union  against  another.  If  to-day  Texas  should  be 
obtained  to  strengthen  the  south,  to-morrow  Canada  might  be  acquired 
to  add  strength  to  the  north.  In  the  progress  of  this  spirit  of  universal 
dominion,  the  part  of  the  union  now  the  weakest,  would  find  itself  still 
weaker  from  the  impossibility  of  securing  new  theaters  for  those  peculiar 
institutions  which  it  is  charged  with  being  desirous  to  extend.  But  he 
doubted  whether  Texas  would  really  add  strength  to  the  south.  From 
the  information  which  he  had  of  that  country,  he  thought  it  susceptible 
of  a  division  into  five  states  of  convenient  size  and  form  ;  three  of  which 
he  thought  would  be  unfavorable  to  the  employment  of  slave  labor,  and 
would  be  free  states,  while  only  two  of  them  would  be  slave  states. 
This  might  serve  to  diminish  the  zeal  both  of  those  who  oppose  and 
those  who  urge  annexation. 

Besides,  by  the  annexation  of  Texas,  the  United  States  would  become 
responsible  for  her  debt,  which  he  had  seen  stated  at  thirteen  millions 
of  dollars. 

In  the  event  of  an  attempt  by  any  European  nation  to  colonize  or  sub- 
jugate Texas,  he  would  regard  it  as  the  duty  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States  to  oppose,  by  force  of  arms,  if  necessary,  the  accomplish- 
ment of  such  design. 

If,  as  was  probable,  there  should,  in  the  progress  of  events,  be  a 
separation  of  the  British  North  American  colonies  from  the  parent 
country,  it  was  his  opinion  that  the  happiness  of  all  parties  would  be 
best  promoted  by  their  being  erected  into  a  separate  and  independent 
republic.  The  three  republics,  Canada,  Texas,  and  the  United  States, 
would  be  natural  allies,  ready  by  cooperation,  to  repel  any  foreign  attack 
upon  either. 

In  conclusion,  he  thus  sums  up  his  opinions :  He  "  considers  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  at  this  time,  without  the  assent  of  Mexico,  as  a 
measure  compromising  the  national  character,  involving  us  certainly  in 
war  with  Mexico,  probably  with  other  foreign  powers,  dangerous  to  the 
integrity  of  the  union,  inexpedient  to  the  present  financial  condition  of  the 
country,  and  not  called  for  by  any  general  expression  of  public  opinion." 

This  letter  was  satisfactory  to  the  party  generally,  although  it  did 
not  fully  express  the  views  of  the  ultra  slaveholding  whigs,  or  of  the 
mass  of  the  whig  party  in  the  northern  states.  To  the  former  it  was 
not  sufficiently  favorable  to  slavery,  while  to  the  latter,  the  prospective 
increase  of  the  slave  power  in  the  general  government  was  the  grand 


THE    PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN    OF    1844.  803 

objection  to  the  proposed  measure.  Still,  the  fact  of  Mr.  Clay's  opposi- 
tion to  it,  for  other,  though  less  weighty  reasons,  rendered  him  generally 
acceptable  to  the  party  in  these  states. 

Notwithstanding  Mr.  Van  Buren  had  long  been  the  leading  demo- 
cratic candidate,  and  his  nomination  had  been  considered  as  almost  cer- 
tain, his  availability  began  to  be  questioned  by  many  prominent  members 
of  the  democratic  party.  In  the  southern  states,  especially,  where  the 
deepest  solicitude  was  felt  for  the  annexation  of  Texas,  the  appreheusion 
prevailed,  that  Mr.  Van  Buren,  being  a  northern  man,  might  not 
encourage  this  favorite  scheme  of  the  south.  As  the  opinions  of  a  can- 
didate on  this  question  were  deemed  all  important  in  that  section  of  the 
union,  Mr.  William  H.  Hammet,  member  of  congress  from  Mississippi, 
and  recently  appointed  a  delegate  to  the  approaching  national  convention, 
on  the  27th  of  March,  addressed  Mr.  Van  Buren,  requesting  of  him  a 
public  expression  of  his  "  opinions  as  to  the  constitutionality  and  expe- 
diency of  immediately  annexing  Texas  to  the  United  States,  or  as  soon 
as  the  consent  of  Texas  might  be  had  to  such  annexation." 

Mr.  Van  Buren's  answer  is  dated  April  20,  three  days  later  than  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Clay  on  the  same  subject,  but  before  its  publication.  The 
letter  is  one  of  very  great  length,  in  which  the  several  points  involved  in 
this  important  question  are  elaborately  discussed.  It  also  contains 
many  interesting  historical  facts,  directly  and  indirectly  relating  to  the 
subject. 

As  Mr,  Clay  had  done  under  Mr.  Adams,  so  Mr.  Van  Buren,  in  1829, 
while  secretary  of  state,  by  direction  of  Gen.  Jackson,  instructed  our 
minister  at  Mexico  to  open  a  negotiation  with  the  Mexican  government 
for  the  purchase  of  the  greater  part  of  the  then  province  of  Texas.  "  In 
taking  this  step,"  he  says,  "  the  administration  of  president  Jackson 
renewed  (but  as  was  supposed,  under  more  favorable  circumstances)  an 
attempt  to  accomplish  the  same  object  which  had  been  made  by  its 
immediate  predecessor.  Instructions,  similar  in  their  general  object, 
had,  in  the  second  year  of  the  latter  administration,  been  sent  from  the 
department  of  state  to  the  same  American  minister  at  Mexico.  I  am 
not  aware  that  there  were  any  material  differences  between  them,  other 
than  those  of  1827  proposed  an  acquisition  of  territory  as  far  west  as  the 
Rio  del  Norte — being,  I  believe,  the  extreme  western  boundary  of  Texas — 
whilst  the  cession  asked  for  by  president  Jackson  extended  only  west 
as  far  as  the  desert  or  grand  prairie,  which  lies  east  of  the  river 
Nueces  ;  and  that  for  the  frontier  the  payment  of  one  million  of  dollars 
was  authorized,  whilst,  by  the  administration  of  president  Jackson,  the 
American  minister  was  permitted  to  go  as  high  as  four,  and,  if  indis- 
pensable, five  millions.     Both  authorized  agreements  for  smaller  portions 


804  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  territory ;  and  the  payments  were  modified  accordingly.  In  respect 
to  the  proposed  stipulations  for  the  ultimate  incorporation  of  the  inhabi- 
tants into  the  union,  both  instructions  were  identical, 

"  In  August,  1837,  a  proposition  was  received  at  the  department  of 
state,  from  the  Texian  minister  at  Washington,  proposing  a  negotiation 
for  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States.  This  was  the  first 
time  the  question  of  annexing  a  foreign  independent  state  had  ever  been 
presented  to  this  government.  In  deciding  upon  the  disposition  that 
ought  to  be  made  of  it,  I  did  not  find  it  necessary  to  consider  the  ques- 
tion of  constitutional  power,  nor  the  manner  in  which  the  object  should 
be  accomplished,  if  deemed  expedient  and  proper.  Both  these  points 
were,  therefore,  in  terms,  passed  over,  in  the  reply  of  the  secretary  of 
state  to  the  Texian  minister,  as  subjects  the  consideration  of  which  had 
not  been  entered  upon  by  the  executive." 

He  then  proceeds  to  the  discussion  of  the  constitutional  power.  It 
may  be  proper  here  to  premise,  that  as,  by  the  constitution,  the  power 
to  admit  new  states  into  the  union  is  given  to  congress,  Texas,  it  was 
inferred,  could  not  be  annexed,  as  a  state^  by  the  treaty-making  power  ; 
and  hence,  if  annexed  by  treaty,  it  could  be  done  constitutionally  only, 
if  at  all,  by  acquiring  it  as  a  territory.  But  as  the  constitution 
did  not  in  terms  confer  upon  either  branch  of  the  government  the  power 
to  purchase  or  otherwise  acquire  foreign  territory,  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  even  as  territory,  was  extensively  questioned.  As  has  been  else- ' 
where  stated,  Mr.  Jefi'erson  and  numerous  other  eminent  statesmen, 
admitted  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  to  be  unauthorized  by  the  constitu- 
tion, and  justified  it  only  on  the  ground  of  a  necessity  which,  it  was  con- 
tended, did  not  in  the  present  case  exist.  Congress,  alone,  had  express 
power  to  purchase  territory ;  only,  however,  so  far  as  the  objects  were 
specified,  viz.,  "  for  the  erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals,  dock-yards, 
and  other  needful  buildings."  Thus,  it  is  perceived,  there  was  no  way 
of  acquiring  foreign  territory  which  did  not  present  constitutional  objec- 
tions to  some  minds.  The  acquisition  by  treaty,  palpable  as  its  uncon- 
stitutionality has  been  deemed,  had  the  sanction  of  precedent,  and  the 
acquiescence  of  the  people,  and  was  therefore  liable  to  the  least  objection. 
This  is  the  ground  assumed  by  Mr.  Van  Buren. 

"  If,"  he  says,  "  there  be  nothing  in  the  situation  or  condition  of  the 
territory  of  Texas,  which  would  render  its  admission  hereafter  into  the 
union  as  a  new  state  improper,  I  cannot  perceive  any  objection,  on  con- 
stitutional grounds,  to  its  annexation  as  a  territory.  In  speaking  of  the 
right  to  admit  new  states,  I  must,  of  course,  be  understood,  as  referring 
to  the  power  of  congress.  The  executive  and  senate  may,  as  I  have 
already  observed,  by  the  exercise  of  the  treaty-making  power,  acquire 


THE    PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN    OF   1844.  805 

territory ;  but  new  states  can  only  be  admitted  by  congress."  To  sustain 
these  propositions,  he  examines  at  length  the  constitution,  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  convention  of  framers,  and  the  articles  of  confederation. 

In  answering  the  inquiry  as  to  the  expediency  of  annexation,  he  refers 
to  a  letter  from  secretary  Forsyth  to  Gen.  Hunt,  the  Texian  minister, 
while  he,  Mr.  Van  Buren,  was  president.  This  letter,  which  stated  his 
views  and  those  of  his  cabinet,  speaks  thus :  "  So  long  as  Texas  shall 
remain  at  war,  while  the  United  States  are  at  peace  with  her  adversary, 
the  opposition  of  the  Texian  minister  plenipotentiary  necessarily  involves 
the  question  of  war  with  that  adversary.  The  United  States  are  bound 
to  Mexico  by  a  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce,  which  will  be  scrupu- 
lously observed  on  their  part  so  long  as  it  can  be  reasonably  hoped 
that  Mexico  will  perform  her  duties,  and  respect  our  rights  under  it. 
The  United  States  might  justly  be  suspected  of  a  disregard  of  the 
friendly  purposes  of  the  compact,  if  the  overture  of  General  Hunt  were 
to  be  even  reserved  for  future  consideration,  as  this  would  imply  a  dis- 
position on  our  part  to  espouse  the  quarrel  of  Texas  with  Mexico — a 
disposition  wholly  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  the  treaty,  with  the 
uniform  policy  and  the  obvious  welfare  of  the  United  States. 

"  The  inducements  mentioned  by  General  Hunt  for  the  United  States 
to  annex  Texas  to  their  territory,  are  duly  appreciated ;  but,  powerful 
and  weighty  as  certainly  they  are,  they  are  light  when  opposed  in  the 
scale  of  reason  to  treaty  obligations,  and  respect  for  that  integrity  of 
character  by  which  the  United  States  have  sought  to  distinguish  them- 
selves since  the  establishment  of  their  right  to  claim  a  place  in  the  great 
family  of  nations." 

'<  The  intimation  in  Gen.  Hunt's  letter  that  Texas  might  be  induced 
to  extend  commercial  advantages  to  other  nations  to  the  prejudice  of 
the  United  States,  was  thus  noticed  : 

"  '  It  is  presumed,  however,  that  the  motives  by  which  Texas  has  been 
governed  in  making  this  overture,  will  have  equal  force  in  impelling  her 
to  preserve,  as  an  independent  power,  the  most  liberal  commercial  relations 
with  the  United  States.  Such  a  disposition  will  be  cheerfully  met,  in  a 
corresponding  spirit,  by  this  government.  If  the  answer  which  the  un- 
dersigned has  been  directed  to  give  to  the  proposition  of  General  Hunt 
should  unfortunately  work  such  a  change  in  the  sentiments  of  that  gov- 
ernment as  to  induce  an  attempt  to  extend  commercial  relations  else- 
where, upon  terms  prejudicial  to  the  United  States,  this  government  will 
be  consoled  by  the  rectitude  of  its  intentions,  and  a  certainty  that, 
although  the  hazard  of  transient  losses  may  be  incurred  by  a  rigid  ad- 
herence to  just  principles,  no  lasting  prosperity  can  be  secured  when 
they  are  disregarded.'  " 


806  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

These  views,  said  Mr.  Van  Buren,  though  not  satisfactory  to  Gen. 
Hunt,  received  the  almost  unanimous  approval  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States.  Even  a  resolution  offered  in  the  senate  declaring  annex- 
ation, "  whenever  it  could  be  effected  consistently  with  the  public  faith 
and  treaty  stipulations  of  the  United  States,  desirable,"  was  ordered  to 
lie  upon  the  table ;  and  a  similar  disposition  was  made  in  the  house  of 
the  papers  upon  the  subject.  Having  taken  this  position  when  president, 
it  was  now  his  duty  to  consider  whether  the  question  had  so  far  changed 
as  to  justify  him  now  in  advising  a  different  policy.  "Were  Texas  and 
Mexico  still  at  war,  or  were  they  not  ?  Regarding  a  true  answer  to  this 
question  indispensable  to  a  correct  decision  as  to  the  expediency  of  an- 
nexation, we  give  here  a  copious  extract  from  the  letter : 

"  Mexico  has  been  incessant  in  her  avowal,  as  well  to  our  government 
as  to  others,  of  the  continuance  of  the  war,  and  of  her  determination  to 
prosecute  it.  How  does  Texas  regard  her  position  in  respect  to  the  war 
with  Mexico  ?  Three  years  subsequent  to  our  recognition  of  her  inde- 
pendence, we  find  her  entering  into  a  stipulation  with  a  foreign  power  to 
accept  of  her  mediation  to  bring  about  a  cessation  of  hostilities  between 
her  and  Mexico,  engaging  to  assume  a  million  sterling  of  the  debt  due 
from  Mexico  to  the  subjects  of  that  power,  if  she,  through  her  influence, 
obtained  from  Mexico  an  unlimited  truce  in  respect  to  the  war  then 
raging  between  her  and  Texas  within  one  month,  and  a  treaty  of  peace 
in  six.  As  late  as  last  June,  we  see  a  proclamation  of  the  president  of 
Texas,  declaring  a  suspension  of  hostilities  between  the  two  powers 
during  the  pendency  of  negotiations  to  be  entered  upon  between  them, 
issued  on  the  supposition  that  a  similar  proclamation  would  be  issued  by 
Mexico ;  and  actual  hostilities  are  now  only  suspended  by  an  armistice 
to  be  continued  for  a  specified  and  short  period,  for  the  sake  of  negotia- 
tion. Nor  are  our  own  views  upon  the  point  less  explicit.  In  the  pub- 
lished letter  of  the  late  secretary  of  state,  to  the  Mexican  minister  at 
"Washington,  written  in  December  last,  he  says :  '  Nearly  eight  years 
have  elapsed  since  Texas  declared  her  independence.  During  all  that 
time  Mexico  has  asserted  her  right  of  jurisdiction  and  dominion  over 
that  country,  and  has  endeavored  to  enforce  it  by  arms.'  In  the  presi- 
dent's message  to  congress,  it  is  stated  that  '  the  war  which  has  existed 
for  so  long  a  time  between  Mexico  and  Texas,  has,  since  the  battle  of 
San  Jacinto,  consisted  for  the  most  part  of  predatory  incursions,  which, 
while  they  have  been  attended  with  much  of  suffering  to  individuals,  and 
kept  the  borders  of  the  two  countries  in  a  state  of  constant  alarm,  have 
failed  to  approach  to  any  definite  result?  And  after  commenting 
with  much  truth  upon  the  insufficiency  of  the  armaments  wliich  Mexico 
has  fitted  out  for  the  subjection  of  Texas — on  the  length  of  time  which 


THE    PRESIDENTIAL     CAMPAIGN    OF    1844.  807 

has  elapsed  since  the  latter  declared  her  independence- —on  the  perse- 
verance, notwithstanding,  in  plans  of  reconquest  by  Mexico — on  her 
refusal  to  acknowledge  the  independence  of  Texas,  and  on  the  evils  of 
border  warfare,  the  message  adds :  '  The  United  States  have  an  imme- 
ate  interest  in  seeing  an  end  put  to  the  state  of  hostilities  between  Mexico 
and  Texas.' 

"  But  what,  my  dear  sir,  is  the  true  and  undisguised  character  of  the 
remedy  for  those  evils,  which  would  be  applied  by  the  '  immediate  an- 
nexation of  Texas  to  the  United  States  ?'  Is  it  more  or  less  than  say- 
ing to  Mexico,  '  We  feel  ourselves  aggrieved  by  the  continuance  of  this 
war  between  you  and  Texas  ;  we  have  an  interest  in  seeing  it  terminated  ; 
we  will  accomplish  that  object  by  taking  the  disputed  territory  to  our- 
selves ;  we  will  make  Texas  a  part  of  the  United  States,  so  that  those 
plans  of  reconquest  which  we  know  you  are  maturing,  to  be  successful, 
must  be  made  so  against  the  power  that  we  can  bring  into  the  contest ; 
if  the  war  is  to  be  continued  as  we  understand  to  be  your  design,  the 
United  States  are  henceforth  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  belligerents?'  " 

The  sentiments  expressed  in  the  following  extracts  are  worthy  of  all 
observation:  "We  must  look  to  this  matter  as  it  really  stands.  We 
shall  act  under  the  eye  of  an  intelligent,  observing  world ;  and  the  affair 
cannot  be  made  to  wear  a  different  aspect  from  what  it  deserves  if  even 
we  had  the  disposition  (which  we  have  not)  to  throw  over  it  disguises  of 
any  kind.  We  should  consider  whether  there  is  any  way  in  which  the 
peace  of  the  country  can  be  preserved,  should  an  immediate  annexation 
take  place,  save  one — and  that  is,  according  to  present  appearances,  the 
improbable  event  that  Mexico  will  be  deterred  from  the  farthest  prosecu- 
tion of  the  war  by  the  apprehension  of  our  power.  #  *  * 
The  question  then  recurs,  if,  as  sensible  men,  we  cannot  avoid  the  con- 
clusion that  the  immediate  annexation  of  Texas  would,  in  all  human  pro- 
bability, draw  after  it  a  war  with  Mexico,  can  it  be  expedient  to  attempt 
it  ?  Of  the  consequences  of  such  a  war,  the  character  it  might  be  made 
to  assume,  the  entanglements  with  other  nations  which  the  position  of  a 
belligerent  almost  unavoidably  draws  after  it,  and  the  undoubted  injuries 
which  might  be  inflicted  upon  each — notwithstanding  the  great  disparity 
of  their  respective  forces;  I  will  not  say  a  word.  God  forbid  that  an 
American  citizen  should  ever  count  the  cost  of  any  appeal  to  wlrat  is  appro- 
priately denominated  the  last  resort  of  nations,  whenever  that  resort  be- 
comes necessary  either  for  the  safety  or  to  vindicate  the  honor  of  his 
country.  There  is,  I  trust,  not  one  so  base  as  not  to  regard  himself  and 
all  he  has  to  be  forever  and  at  all  times  subject  to  such  a  requisition.  But 
would  a  war  with  Mexico,  brought  on  under  such  circumstances,  be  a 
contest  of  that  character  ?     Could  we  hope  to  stand  justified  in  the  eyes 


808  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  mankind  for  entering  into  it ;  more  especially  if  its  commencement  is 
to  be  preceded  by  the  appropriation  to  our  own  uses  of  tbe  territory, 
tbe  sovereignty  of  wbich  is  in  dispute  between  two  nations,  one  of  which 
we  are  to  join  in  the  struggle  ?  This,  sir,  is  a  matter  of  the  gravest 
import,  one  in  respect  to  which  no  American  statesman  or  citizen  can 
possibly  be  indifferent." 

An  important  suggestion  of  Mr.  Van  Buren  was,  that  we  were  liable 
to  be  misled  on  this  subject  by  the  fact,  that  many,  if  not  most  of  the 
persons  in  Texas  to  be  affected  by  the  decision  of  this  question  were 
once  our  own  fellow-citizens ;  and  still  had  their  relatives  and  friends 
amongst  us,  by  a  respect  for  whose  feelings  we  were  naturally  influenced. 
Yet,  he  says  :  "  Nothing  is  either  more  true  or  more  extensively  known, 
than  that  Texas  was  wrested  from  Mexico,  and  her  independence  estab- 
lished through  the  instrumentality  of  citizens  of  the  United  States." 
He  says,  however,  that  it  was  done  against  the  efforts  of  our  government 
to  prevent  our  citizens  from  engaging  in  the  enterprise.  And  he  defends 
the  government  against  the  imputation  of  insincerity  in  these  efforts, 
and  of  a  desire  to  obtain  in  another  way  a  portion  of  the  territory  of 
Mexico  which  we  had  failed  to  obtain  by  fair  purchase  or  by  negotiation. 
He  said  he  knew  from  having  been  consulted  by  Gen.  Jackson  on  the 
subject  while  the  latter  was  president,  that  he  was  sincerely  desirous  to 
prevent  the  slightest  violation  of  the  laws. 

Mr.  Van  Buren  replies  to  the  argument  that  the  acquisition  of  Texas 
in  the  manner  proposed,  was  liable  to  no  greater  objection  now,  than  it 
was  in  1827  and  1829,  when  it  was  attempted  by  two  successive  adminis- 
trations (Adams'  and  Jackson's ;)  and  also  to  the  argument  that,  if  Texas 
is  not  acquired  now,  the  opportunity  may  be  lost  forever.  The  substance 
of  the  replies  is^  that,  admitting  what  is  here  assumed  to  be  true,  it  can 
not  justify  the  committing  of  a  wrong  to  secure  the  desired  object.  But 
in  relation  to  the  mode  of  acquisition,  he  did  not  admit  the  analogy 
which  was  claimed  to  exist  between  the  present  case  and  those  of  the  two 
preceding  administrations. 

It  was  not  long  after  this  letter  appeared,  before  it  was  apparent  that 
Mr.  Van  Buren  was  to  be  abandoned.  Movements  were  soon  made  in 
many  places  to  prevent  his  nomination.  Annexation  was  to  southern 
democrats  an  object  for  which  even  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  not  deemed  too 
great  a  sacrifice.  Meetings  were  held  for  the  purpose  of  revoking  the 
instructions  which  had  been  given  to  delegates  to  support  Mr.  Van 
Buren  ;  and  resolutions  were  passed  recommending  to  them  to  cast  their 
votes  for  men  known  and  pledged  to  be  in  favor  of  annexation.  In  New 
York  and  other  northern  states,  the  "  democracy"  protested  against 
these  southern  movements  to  defeat  Mr.  Van  Buren.    Protests,  however, 


THE    PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN    OF   1844.  809 

as  the  result  soon  proved,  were  unavailing ;  and  Mr.  Van  Buicn  himself 
was  compelled,  for  the  harmony  of  the  party,  so  far  to  defer  to  southern 
sentiment,  as  to  authorize  the  withdrawal  of  his  name  if  it  should  be 
found  necessary. 

The  Whig  national  convention  assembled  at  Baltimore  on  the  1st  of 
May.  Among  the  delegates  were  an  unusual  number  of  the  most  able 
and  eminent  men  from  all  the  states.  Hon.  Ambrose  Spencer,  of  New 
York,  was  chosen  president  of  the  convention.  No  ballot  for  president 
was  taken.  A  resolution  was  offered  by  Benjamin  Watkins  Leigh,  of 
Virginia,  declaring  Henry  Clay,  of  Kentucky,  to  be  unanimously  nomi- 
nated as  the  whig  candidate  for  the  presidency,  and  was  carried  by  ac- 
clamation. Theodore  Frelinghuysen,  was  chosen,  on  the  third  ballot,  as 
a  candidate  for  vice-president. 

The  democratic  convention,  which  assembled  on  the  27th,  manifested 
a  considerable  want  of  unanimity.  Mr.  Van  Buren,  however,  received 
a  clear  majority  on  the  first  ballot.  The  vote  was,  for  Mr.  Van  Buren, 
146;  for  Lewis  Cass,  83;  Kichard  M.  Johnson,  24;  for  Mr.  Calhoun, 
6  ;  and  7  for  other  persons.  But  a  rule  of  the  convention  required  a 
majority  of  two-thirds  to  nominate.  On  the  eighth  ballot,  Mr.  Van 
Buren  received  104;  Gen.  Cass,  114;  James  K.  Polk,  44.  The  delega- 
tions from  New  York  and  Virginia  then  retired  separately  for  consulta- 
tion. On  their  return,  Mr.  Roane,  of  Virginia,  stated  that  the  delegates 
from  that  state  would  vote  for  Mr.  Polk.  Mr.  Butler,  of  New  York, 
made  the  same  announcement  in  behalf  of  the  delegates  from  his  state, 
with  the  exception  of  one,  who  would  vote  blank ;  and,  at  the  same  time, 
having  authority  for  so  doing,  withdrew  the  name  of  Mr.  Van  Buren. 
On  the  ninth  ballot,  the  vote  was  unanimous  for  Mr.  Polk.  Silas 
Wright,  of  New  York,  senator  in  congress,  was  nominated  for  vice-presi- 
dent. Mr.  Wright,  then  at  Washington,  having  declined  the  nomina- 
tion, George  M.  Dallas,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  the  next  day  nominated. 

The  nomination  of  Mr.  Polk,  took  the  country  by  surprise :  to  the 
friends  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  it  was  a  painful  disappointment.  They  ac- 
quiesced, however,  in  the  nomination  ;  and  Mr.  Polk  probably  received 
a  more  unanimous  support  from  his  party,  than  was  given  to  his  oppo- 
nent, there  being  in  the  -northern  states  a  considerable  number  of  whigs 
who  regarded  Mr.  Clay's  connection  with  slavery  as  an  insuperable  ob- 
jection to  their  giving  him  their  votes,  and  who  consequently  voted  for 
Mr.  Birney,  the  candidate  of  the  abolition  party.  The  letter  of  Mr. 
Van  Buren  on  the  annexation  question,  had  doubtless  contributed  largely 
to  defeat  his  nomination.  Even  with  a  unanimous  nomination,  his  elec- 
tion was  considered  doubtful ;  and  without  the  cordial  support  of  the 
southern  portion  of  the  party,  it  was  deemed  almost  hopeless.  Mr.  Polk 


810  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

being  known  to  be  true  to  southern  interests,  would  be  likely  ^o  com- 
mand even  more  than  a  party  rote,  (Mr.  Clay  being  charged  by  his  oppo- 
nents in  that  section  of  the  union  with  northern  sympathies,)  while  at 
the  north  he  was  certain  of  receiving  at  least  a  full  party  vote,  as  north- 
ern democrats  had  hitherto,  with  great  unanimity  refused  to  make  issue 
upon  the  question  of  slavery. 

The  whigs  were  in  this  respect  less  fortunate.  Suspected  by  the  more 
ultra  portions  of  the  whigs  on  both  sides  of  the  slavery  question,  Mr. 
Clay  was  several  times  addressed  for  a  more  definite  expression  of  his 
views  on  the  subject  of  annexation. 

Being  placed  "  between  two  fires,"  he  found  it  not  an  easy  matter  to 
answer  letters  of  inquiry  from  either  section,  without  afi"ecting  his  stand- 
ing in  the  other.  In  his  answer  to  one  of  these  letters  from  the  south, 
he  wrote  :  "  I  consider  the  union  a  great  political  partnership  ;  and  that 
new  members  ought  not  to  be  admitted  into  the  concern  at  the  imminent 
hazard  of  its  dissolution.  Personally  I  could  have  no  objection  to  the 
annexation  of  Texas  ;  but  I  certainly  would  be  unwilling  to  see  the  ex- 
isting union  dissolved  or  seriously  jeoparded  for  the  sake  of  acquiring 
Texas.  If  any  one  desires  to  know  the  leading  and  paramount  object  of 
my  public  life,  the  preservation  of  the  union  will  furnish  him  the  key." 
The  expression  that  he  had  "  personally  no  objection  to  annexation" 
was  pertinaciously  and  vigorously  pressed  by  the  abolitionists  as  evidence 
that  his  influence,  if  he  should  be  elected,  would  be  given  to  that  mea- 
sure. 

But  there  were  other  prominent  party  questions  at  issue  in  the  presi- 
dential canvass  of  this  year.  A  vigorous  efi"ort  had  been  made  at  the 
preceding  session  of  congress  to  modify  the  tariff".  A  bill  had  been  re- 
ported in  the  house,  which  proposed  to  substitute  ad  valorem  for  specific 
duties  on  almost  all  articles,  and  to  reduce  them  to  rates  little  above 
those  existing  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1842.  The  bill 
had  been  laid  upon  the  table  by  a  vote  of  105  to  99.  A  general  and 
powerful  assault  was  made  upon  the  tariff  during  the  canvass.  It  was  a 
regular  topic  of  discussion  in  all  the  great  political  meetings  during  the 
campaign.  A  slight  gain  only  of  anti-tariff  members  at  this  election  was 
necessary  to  effect  the  object  contemplated  by  the  above  bill.  This  re- 
sult was  secured,  a  majority  of  low  tariff  members  having  been  returned 
to  the  next  congress. 

A  new  question  had  been  introduced  by  the  democratic  national  con- 
vention, which  had,  as  was  supposed,  considerable  influence  in  determin- 
ing the  result  of  the  election  of  1844.  The  conflicting  claims  of  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  to  a  part  of  the  Oregon  country,  have 
been  mentioned.     It  will  be  recollected  that,  by  an  arrangement  then 


THE    PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN    OF   1844.  811 

existing,  the  territory  in  dispute,  wliich  extended  north  to  54  degiees  and 
40  minutes  north  latitude,  was  to  be  occupied  jointly  by  the  parties ; 
and  that  this  joint  occupancy  might  be  terminated  by  either  party  giving 
to  the  other  twelve  months'  notice  of  an  intention  to  discontinue  the 
same.  A  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  democratic  convention,  declaring 
"  that  our  title  to  the  whole  of  Oregon  is  clear  and  unquestionable ; 
that  no  portion  of  the  same  ought  to  be  ceded  to  England  or  any  other 
power  ;  and  the  reoccupation  of  Oregon  and  the  reannexation  of  Texas, 
at  the  earliest  practicable  period,  are  great  American  measures,  which 
the  convention  recommends  to  the  cordial  support  of  the  democracy  of 
the  union." 

Mr.  Van  Buren's  letter  on  annexation  had  been  approved  by  the  mass 
of  the  northern  democracy.  Hence  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Polk  was  to 
them  at  first  more  than  a  mere  matter  of  surprise.  A  candidate  was 
presented  to  them  whose  views  upon  the  most  important  question  to  be 
decided  at  the  ensuing  election  were  directly  opposed  to  their  own,  and 
whom  they  could  not  support  without  subjecting  themselves  to  the 
charge  of  palpable  inconsistency.  And  for  a  time  there  were  indications 
of  extensive  ''  bolting."  The  strength  of  party  attachment,  however, 
soon  overcame  all  opposition  to  the  nomination.  Many  who  had  depre- 
cated annexation,  became  the  most  ardent  and  distinguished  advocates 
of  this  "  great  American  measure."  But  although  Mr.  Polk  was  sup- 
ported  by  the  democratic  party  at  the  north  with  great  unanimity,  there 
were  those  who  gave  their  support  with  a  protest  against  the  adoption 
of  the  annexation  project  as  a  party  measure.  The  organ  of  this  class 
of  democrats  was  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  then,  as  now,  a  moderate 
and  sincere  opponent  of  slavery  compromise  and  extension,  whose  editor, 
with  six  other  gentlemen,  issued  the  following  private  circular,  which 
they  sent  to  some  of  their  friends  in  different  parts  of  the  state : 

[confidential.] 

"  Sir  :  You  will  doubtless  agree  with  us,  that  the  late  Baltimore 
convention  place  the  democratic  party  at  the  north  in  a  position  of  great 
difficulty.  We  are  constantly  reminded  that  it  rejected  Mr.  Van  Buren 
and  nominated  Mr.  Polk,  for  reasons  connected  with  the  immediate 
annexation  of  Texas — reasons  which  had  no  relation  to  the  principles 
of  the  party.  Nor  was  that  all.  Tho,  convention  went  beyond  the 
authority  delegated  to  its  members,  and  adopted  a  resolution  on  the 
subject  of  Texas,  (a  subject  not  before  the  country  when  they  were 
elected ;  upon  which,  therefore,  they  were  not  instructed,)  which  seeks 
to  interpolate  into  the  party  code  a  new  doctrine,  hitherto  unknown 
among  us,  at  war  with  some  of  our  established  principles,  and  abhorrent 


812  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

to  the  opinions  and  feelings  of  a  great  majority  of  northern  freemen. 
In  this  position,  what  was  the  party  at  the  north  to  do  ?  Was  it  to 
reject  the  nominations  and  abandon  the  contest,  or  should  it  support  the 
nominations,  rejecting  the  untenable  doctrine  interpolated  at  the  con- 
vention, and  taking  care  that  their  support  should  be  accompanied  with 
such  an  expression  of  their  opinion  as  to  prevent  its  being  misinter- 
preted ?  The  latter  alternative  has  been  preferred ;  and,  we  think, 
wisely ;  for  we  conceive  that  a  proper  expression  of  their  opinions  will 
save  their  votes  from  misconstruction,  and  that  proper  efforts  will 
secure  the  nomination  of  such  members  of  congress  as  will  reject  the 
unwarrantable  scheme  now  pressed  upon  the  country. 

"  "With  these  views,  assuming  that  you  feel  on  this  subject  as  we  do 
we  have  been  desired  to  address  you,  and  to  invite  the  cooperation  of 
yourself  and  other  friends  throughout  the  state : 

"  1st.  In  the  publication  of  a  joint  letter,  declaring  our  purpose  to 
support  the  nominations,  rejecting  the  resolutions  respecting  Texas. 

"  2d.  In  promoting  and  supporting  at  the  next  election  the  nomina- 
tion for  congress  of  such  persons  as  concur  in  these  opinions. 

"  If  your  views  in  this  matter  coincide  with  ours,  please  write  to  some 
one  of  us,  and  a  draft  of  the  proposed  letter  will  be  forwarded  for  exami- 
nation." 

The  paper  was  signed  by  George  P.  Barker,  "William  C.  Bryant,  J. 
"W.  Edmonds,  David  Dudley  Field,  Theodore  Sedgwick,  Thomas  "W. 
Tucker,  and  Isaac  Townsend. 

This  circular  by  some  means  got  out  of  its  destined  track,  and  soon 
found  its  way  into  the  newspapers.  It  subjected  its  authors  to  the  most 
vehement  denunciation.  The  act  was  pronounced  by  the  New  York 
Plebeian,  the  organ  of  the  conservative  democracy,  *'  treason  under  the 
mask  of  philanthropy — ^federalism  under  the  guise  of  democracy — false- 
hood under  the  covering  of  truth."  The  signers  of  the  circular  were  "  a 
clique  of  self-righteous  politicians,"  engaged  in  a  "  contemptible  and 
impotent  attempt  to  restrict  the  progress  of  republican  institutions." 
The  circular  meant  "  treason — foul,  abolition  treason."  "  It  would 
throw  out  the  idea,  that  there  was  a  diversity  of  sentiment  among  the 
democratic  masses  upon  this  vital  movement  of  annexing  Texas.  It 
would  deceive  the  country  into  the  belief,  that  the  democracy  of  the 
empire  state  had  laid  aside  its  patriotism,  its  love  of  country,  its  old 
fashioned  republicanism,  and,  through  these  'seven  wise  men,'  stood 
ready  to  violate  the  compromise  of  the  constitution,  raise  the  black  flag 
of  political  abolition,  and  stand  a  barrier  resisting  the  onward  march 
of  the  republic.  It  would,  moreover,  by  *  confidential,'  secret,  wily, 
insidious  organization,  attempt  to  control  our  congressional  nomina- 
tions." 


THE    PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN    OF  1844.  813 

The  editor  of  the  Post  said  in  reply,  that  the  letter  contained  only  the 
expression  of  opinions  frequently  repeated  in  that  paper,  and  which 
would  be  repeated  thereafter.  He  claimed  the  right  to  correspond  pri- 
vately on  political  subjects  when  he  chose,  and  if  his  letters  were  pil- 
fered and  published,  he  merely  asked  the  community  to  mark  those  who 
were  concerned  in  the  act  as  spies  and  thieves.  He  persisted  in  declar- 
ing the  intention  not  to  recognize  the  annexation  of  Texas  as  an  issue 
between  the  two  great  political  parties. 

The  presidential  campaign  of  1844  was  highly  animated — the  more  so 
from  the  new  questions  brought  into  the  canvass.  Never  were  the 
claims  of  candidates  more  closely  examined  or  more  vigorously  con- 
tested. It  was  evident,  soon  after  the  nominations  were  made,  that 
which  party  soever  should  be  defeated,  neither  would  be  chargeable 
with  inactivity.  Probably  in  no  other  similar  contest  has  a  greater 
array  of  talent  been  marshaled  into  the  field  of  political  discussion. 
Some  of  the  most  eminent  citizens,  such  as  had  held  the  highest  official 
stations,  enlisted  during  the  campaign  as  regular  itinerants,  performing 
a  circuit  of  half  the  union.  Without  undertaking  to  decide  with  which 
party  was  the  balance  of  merit,  it  will  hardly  be  disputed  that  the  demo- 
crats had  the  advantage  in  the  force  or  efficiency  of  argument  in  the 
popular  assembles.  The  appeals  in  behalf  of  the  "  lone  star"  seeking  a, 
union  with  the  galaxy  of  American  confederated  states,  could  not  fail 
to  touch  the  republican  sympathies  of  the  nation ;  while  the  pledge  of 
Mr.  Polk  to  insist  on  "  the  whole  of  Oregon,  or  none" — "  with  or  with- 
out war,"  was  no  less  effective  with  many  who  remembered  the  former 
wrongs  of  our  old  enemy. 

Whigs,  on  the  other  hand,  held  up  to  public  view  the  evils  of  slavery, 
and  made  impassioned  appeals  in  behalf  of  suffering  humanity ;  at  the 
same  time  charging  upon  their  opponents  at  the  north  an  alliance  with 
the  propagandists  of  slavery  in  an  attempt  to  increase  its  power  in  the 
government,  by  extending  the  slave  territory  of  the  union.  But  these 
arguments  were  lost  upon  men  belonging  to  a  party  the  first  article  of 
whose  creed  enjoined  adherence  to  "  regular  nominations ;"  who  were 
taught  to  eschew  the  question  of  slavery  as  a  party  question ;  and  who 
held  to  the  popular  notion  that  all  agitation  of  the  subject  only  serves 
to  aggravate  the  evil. 

Not  the  least  source  of  embarrassment  to  the  whigs  was  the  opposition 
of  the  abolition  party.  This  party,  though  confessedly  without  the  least 
hope  of  electing  their  candidates,  were  not  less  assiduous  in  their  elec- 
tioneering efforts  than  either  of  the  other  parties.  Expecting  their 
gains  from  the  whigs,  they  came  into  direct  collision  with  that  party. 
Their  expostulations  with  those  whom  they  deemed  ''  conscience  whigs," 


814  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

were  incessant,  and  not  altogether  without  effect.  Many  who  were 
pledged  against  slavery,  and  who  thought  they  were  carrying  out  their 
principles  by  voting  for  the  whig  candidate,  who,  though  a  slaveholder, 
was  opposed  to  a  measure  which  must  necessarily  increase  the  political 
power  of  slavery,  were  dissuaded  from  their  purpose.  The  inconsistency 
of  voting  for  a  slaveholder  under  any  circumstances  ;  "  do  right  regard- 
less of  consequences  ;" — these  and  other  like  arguments  were  plied  with 
great  assiduity.  Besides,  Mr.  Clay  having  written  that  "personally 
he  had  no  objection  to  the  annexation  of  Texas,"  it  was  argued  that 
his  alleged  objections  would  readily  yield  to  his  personal  feelings ;  and 
therefore  he  could  be  no  more  safely  trusted  than  Mr.  Polk.  The  abo- 
litionists being  unanimously  opposed  to  annexation,  the  whigs  had  cal- 
culated on  a  large  support  from  that  party ;  whereas,  the  result  showed 
a  large  increase  of  the  abolition  vote.  In  the  state  of  New  York,  this 
vote  was  more  than  double  its  amount  in  1842,  the  number  of  votes 
gained  being  more  than  sufficient,  if  they  had  been  given  for  Mr.  Clay, 
to  have  secured  him  the  electoral  vote  of  that  state,  and  with  it  his 
election.  The  indignation  of  the  whigs  excited  by  the  course  of  the 
abolitionists,  found  vent  in  the  severest  censures.  This  unexpected 
opposition,  to  which  they  ascribed  the  defeat  of  their  favorite,  oft-tried 
candidate,  for  whose  election  they  were  deeply  anxious,  and  who,  as 
they  supposed,  ought  to  have  been  deemed  unexceptionable,  under 
existing  circumstances,  to  all  opponents  of  slavery,  was  an  offense  ivhich 
has  not  to  this  day  been  entirely  forgotten  or  forgiven. 

Of  the  electoral  votes,  Messrs.  Polk  and  Dallas  received  170  ;  Messrs. 
Clay  and  Frelinghuysen,  105. 


CHAPTER  LXVI. 

TERRITORIAL      GOVERNMENT      OF      OREGON. ANNEXATION      OF      TEXAS. 

FLORIDA   AND    IOWA    ADMITTED. UNIFORM    TIME     OF    CHOOSING     PRESI- 
DENTIAL   ELECTORS. REDUCTION    OF    POSTAGE. 

The  2d  session  of  the  28th  congress  commenced  the  2d  of  Decem- 
ber, 1844,  and  terminated  with  Mr.  Tyler's  presidential  term,  on  the  3d 
of  March,  1845.  As  was  to  be  expected,  the  questions  of  the  annexa- 
tion of  Texas,  and  of  the  occupation  of  the  territory  of  Oregon,  which 
had  held  so  prominent  a  position  among  the  issues  at  the  late  election, 


TERRITORIAL    GOVERNMENT    OF    OREGON.  815 

were  introduced  at  an  early  day  of  the  session.  The  president,  in  his 
annual  message,  recommended,  with  a  view  to  protect  and  facilitate  emi- 
gration to  that  territory,  the  establishment  of  military  posts  at  suitable 
points  upon  the  line  of  travel.  Laws  also  should  be  made  to  protect  the 
person  and  property  of  emigrants  after  their  arrival.  These  measures 
were  deemed  necessary  whatever  might  be  the  result  of  the  pending 
negotiation. 

A  bill  was  introduced  in  the  house  on  the  16th  of  December,  by  Mr. 
Duncan,  of  Ohio,  to  establish  a  territorial  government  in  Oregon.  The 
bill  was  subsequently  read  and  referred ;  and  on  the  27th  it  was  taken 
up  for  discussion.  It  embraced  under  the  proposed  government  the 
whole  territory  west  of  the  summit  of  the  Kocky  Mountains  and  between 
latitude  42  degrees  and  54  (fegrees  40  minutes.  In  the  course  of  the 
debate,  the  question  of  title  was  fully  discussed  ;  and  our  claim  to  the 
whole  territory  was  advocated  by  democratic  members.  Some,  however, 
regarded  the  bill  as  repugnant  to  that  provision  of  our  treaty  with  Great 
Britain  which  allowed  a  joint  occupancy  until  after  either  party  should 
have  given  the  other  twelve  months'  notice  of  a  purpose  to  discontinue  it. 

The  bill  was  opposed  also  as  indiscreet  and  improper,  as  negotiations 
were  in  progress,  and  probably  near  a  close.  The  proposed  measure 
might  break  up  the  negotiation,  and  lead  to  war.  It  was  unnecessary 
and  premature.  It  should  be  deferred  until  the  negotiation  was  ended. 
An  amendment  was  proposed  by  Preston  King,  of  New  York,  providing 
for  giving  the  notice  to  the  British  government. 

Mr.  Adams  was  in  favor  of  passing  a  joint  resolution,  directing  the 
president  to  give  notice  to  Great  Britain  that  the  joint  occupancy  must 
end  in  twelve  months.  This  he  thought  the  most  likely  mode  of  bring- 
ing the  pending  negotiation  to  a  point.  After  having  given  the  notice 
he  should  not  object  to  passing  the  present  bill  with  some  modifications  ; 
and  he  hoped  that  in  this  manner  we  might  obtain  possession,  if  not  of 
the  whole  that  we  claimed,  at  least  of  a  very  large  part  of  it,  without 
war.  But  to  pass  the  bill  in  its  present  form,  without  notice,  must  lead 
to  war,  if  it  was  not  itself  a  war  measure. 

Mr.  A.  V.  Brown,  of  Tennessee,  who,  as  chairman  of  the  committee 
on  territories,  had  reported  the  bill,  contended  that  the  bill  should  be 
passed  first,  and  notice  given  afterward. 

Mr.  Winthrop,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  an  amendment,  prohibiting 
slavery,  which  was  adopted,  85  to  56. 

An  amendment  was  also  made,  providing  that  the  act  should  not  be  so 
construed  as  to  interfere  with  the  rights  which  British  subjects  might  have 
under  the  existing  treaty,  until  after  the  twelve  months'  notice  should 
have  been  given.     The  bill  passed  the  house,  February  3,  1845,  140  to 


816  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

59,  and  was  sent  to  the  senate  for  concurrence.  A  motion  to  take  up 
the  bill  was  made  in  that  body  on  the  3d  of  March,  the  last  day  of  the 
session,  but  it  did  not  prevail.     So  the  bill  was  lost. 

Mr.  Tyler  had  in  previous  messages  recommended  the  taking  posses- 
sion of  the  territory,  and  at  the  session  of  1842-3,  a  bill  for  that  purpose 
had  passed  the  senate,  25  to  21 ;  but  the  house  refusing  to  concur,  the 
bill  was  lost.  At  the  next  session,  (1843-44,)  resolutions  were  intro- 
duced into  both  houses,  proposing  to  give  notice  to  Great  Britain  of  the 
intended  termination  of  the  joint  occupancy  after  twelve  months ;  but  the 
resolutions  were  not  adopted.  A  material  objection  to  their  passage  was 
the  apprehension  that  it  might  prejudice  the  negotiation  then  pending. 

But  the  great  measure  of  this  session  (1844-45,)  was  annexation. 
The  negotiation  of  the  treaty  with  Texas,  had  stirred  up  afresh  the  bel- 
ligerent spirit  of  Mexico,  and  had  induced  her  to  threaten  Texas  with  a 
renewal  of  the  war.  The  president,  in  his  message,  expresses  the  opinion, 
that  the  invasion  of 'Texas  would  not  be  looked  upon  with  indifference  by 
our  citizens  of  the  adjoining  states.  Mexico,  he  said,  had  no  just  ground 
of  displeasure.  Texas  was  an  independent  power,  and  free  to  tr^at.  No 
boundary  had  been  defined  by  the  treaty ;  this  the  executive  had  pro- 
posed to  do  upon  terms  which  all  the  world  would  have  pronounced 
reasonable.  He  believed,  if  the  treaty  had  been  ratified,  it  would  have 
been  followed  by  a  prompt  and  satisfactory  settlement  of  the  difficulty 
with  Mexico.  An  objection  urged  against  the  treaty  was,  that  it  had 
not  been  submitted  to  the  ordeal  of  public  opinion.  Although  he  con- 
sidered this  objection  untenable,  he  had  submitted  the  subject  to  con- 
gress, whose  action  would  be  the  best  expression  of  popular  sentiment. 
Congress  having  taken  no  definite  action  upon  the  subject,'the  question 
had  referred  itself  directly  to  the  states  and  the  people  ;  and  their  will 
had  been  expressed  at  the  recent  election,  in  favor  of  the  immediate 
annexation  of  Texas. 

On  the  10th  of  December,  Mr.  M'Duffie  introduced  into  the  senate  reso- 
lutions declaring  the  rejected  treaty,  to  be  "  the  fundamental  law  of  union 
between  the  United  States  and  Texas  so  soon  as  the  supreme  authorities 
of  the  said  republic  of  Texas  shall  agree  to  the  same."  Mr.  Benton  at 
the  same  time  gave  notice  of  a  bill  "  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 
Texas  to  the  United  States."  This  bill  authorized  and  advised  the  pre- 
sident to  open  negotiations  with  Mexico  and  Texas  for  the  adjustment 
of  boundaries  and  the  annexation  of  the  latter  to  the  United  States,  on 
the  same  bases  as  those  stated  in  the  bill  introduced  by  him  at  the  pre- 
ceding session  of  congress.  [See  page  794.]  On  the  12th,  in  the  house, 
Mr.  C.  J.  Ingersoll,  of  Pennsylvania,  reported  a  joint  resolution  for 
annexation  J  similar  to  that  of  Mr.  M'Duffie,  of  the  senate.     Mr.  Win- 


ANNEXATION   OF    TEXAS.  817 

throp,  of  Massachusetts,  one  of  the  minority  of  tte  committee,  declared 
their  dissent  from  the  doctrines  of  the  accompanying  report ;  believing 
the  resolution  to  be  unconstitutional  in  form  and  in  substance ;  incon- 
sistent with  the  law  of  nations  and  the  good  faith  of  our  own  country ; 
as  likely  to  involve  us  in  an  unjust  and  dishonorable  war ;  and  eminently 
objectionable  from  its  relation  to  the  subject  of  slavery. 

Resolutions  of  annexation  were  offered  by  several  members  of  both 
houses.  Among  these  was  a  joint  resolution  submitted  to  the  senate  by 
Mr.  Foster,  of  Tennessee  :  "  That  congress  doth  consent  that  the  terri- 
tory properly  included  within,  and  rightfully  belonging  to  the  republic 
of  Texas,  may  be  erected  into  a  new  state,  to  be  called  the  '  state  of 
Texas,'  with  a  republican  form  of  government,  to  be  adopted  by  the 
people  of  said  republic,  by  deputies  in  convention  assembled,  with  the 
consent  of  the  existing  government,  in  order  that  the  same  may  be 
admitted  as  one  of  the  states  of  this  union."  The  resolution  was  followed 
by  these  conditions  and  guaranties  : 

1.  The  adjustment  of  questions  of  boundary  arising  with  other  govern- 
ments, to  be  laid  before  congress  for  its  final  action. 

2.  All  mines,  salt  springs,  public  edifices,  navy,  fortifications,  and 
other  public  property,  to  be  ceded  to  the  United  States ;  but  all  public 
funds,  debts,  taxes,  and  dues  of  every  kind,  and  all  vacant  and  unappro- 
priated lands  to  be  retained  by  the  state,  and  applied  to  the  payment  of 
her  debts,  for  which  the  general  government  was  in  no  event  to  become 
liable. 

3.  By  consent  of  the  state,  four  new  states  formed  out  of  the  territory 
thereof,  might  hereafter  be  admitted;  those  formed  out  of  territory 
south  of  the  Missouri  compromise  line,  to  be  admitted  with  or  without 
slavery,  as  the  people  of  each  might  desire. 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  resolution  docs  not  prescribe  any  form  or 
mode  of  annexation.  In  regard  to  this,  Mr.  Foster  was  not  determined. 
He  was  in  favor  of  annexation  ;  and  if  any  mode  could  be  devised  which 
should  appear  to  him  to  be  in  conformity  to  the  constitution,  he  would 
unite  in  effecting  the  measure  on  the  principles  contained  in  his  reso- 
lution. 

In  the  house,  on  the  25th  of  January,  the  debate  in  committee  of  the 
whole  having  terminated  at  two  o'clock,  the  committee  proceeded  to  vote 
upon  the  resolution  reported  by  Mr.  IngersoU,  from  the  committee  on 
foreign  affairs,  and  on  the  various  proposed  amendments.  After  dis- 
posing of  a  number  of  these  amendments,  and  amendments  to  amend  the 
same,  Mr.  Milton  Brown,  of  Tennessee,  moved  to  amend  a  pending 
amendment,  by  substituting  a  resolution  offered  by  himself  on  the  13th, 
similar  to  that  of  Mr.  Foster  of  the  senate ;  and  which,  on  motion  of 

52 


818  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Mr.  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  was  amended  by  adding,  that,  "  in  such  state 
or  states  as  shall  be  formed  out  of  said  territory  north  of  the  said  Mis- 
souri compromise  line,  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  except  for 
crime,  shall  be  prohibited."  Mr.  Brown,  having  accepted  this  amend- 
ment, his  proposition,  as  modified,  was  adopted,  199  to  99.  The  ques- 
tion was  then  taken  on  Mr.  TVeller's  amendment,  as  amended  by  the 
substitution  of  that  of  Mr.  Brown,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative,  110 
to  93. 

The  committee  of  the  whole  then  rose,  and  reported  to  the  house  the 
resolution  of  the  committee  on  foreign  affairs,  all  after  the  enacting 
clause  having  been  struck  out,  and  Mr.  Brown's  resolution  inserted. 
The  speaker  having  announced  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  whole, 
a  number  of  members  immediately  sprung  to  the  floor,  and  addressed 
"  Mr.  Speaker."  Mr.  Cave  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  who  was  recognized 
by  the  chair,  observed  that  it  was  time  to  put  an  end  to  this  exciting 
question,  and  moved  the  previous  question,  which  was  seconded,  107  to 
97,  and  the  main  question  ordered  to  be  put,  113  to  106 :  and  the  ques- 
tion, shall  the  house  concur  with  the  committee  of  the  whole  in  adopting 
Mr.  Brown's  amendment,  was  taken,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative  : 
ayes,  118;  noes,  101.  The  resolution  was  then  ordered  to  a  third  read- 
ing, 119  to  97,  and  finally  passed,  120  to  98. 

From  the  classification  of  the  vote  as  given  by  Niles,  it  appears  that, 
of  the  120  members  who  voted  for  the  resolution  of  annexation,  112 
were  democrats,  53  from  free,  and  59  from  slave  states,  and  8  were 
whigs — all  from  slave  states.  Of  the  98  who  voted  in  the  negative,  28 
were  democrats,  all  from  free  states,  and  70  were  whigs,  52  from  free, 
and  18  from  slave  states.  Of  the  members  from  New  York,  9  demo- 
crats voted  for  annexation,  and  14  democrats  and  10  whigs  against  it. 

Another  classification  was  as  follows :  The  number  of  democrats 
voting  was  140 — 81  from  free,  and  59  from  slave  states.  Of  the  81, 
53  were  for,  and  28  against  the  annexation.  The  number  of  whigs 
voting  was  78 — 52  from  free,  and  26  from  slave  states.  Of  the  latter, 
8  were  for,  and  eighteen  against.  The  59  democrats  from  the  slave 
states  all  voted  for,  and  the  52  whigs  from  the  free  states  all  voted 
against  annexation. 

In  the  senate,  on  the  4th  of  February,  Mr.  Archer,  from  the  com- 
mittee on  foreign  relations,  made  a  report  on  the  joint  resolution  from 
the  house  to  annex  Texas.  The  report  was  accompanied  by  two  resolu- 
tions— the  first  declaring  that  the  resolution  from  the  house  be  rejected  ; 
the  other,  that  the  several  bills,  resolutions,  petitions,  and  memorials  on 
the  subject  in  the  senate,  and  referred  to  the  committee,  be  laid  on  the 
table.     Mr.  Buchanan,  one  of  the  committee,  dissented  from  the  report. 


ANNEXATION  OF    TEXAS.  819 

and  declared  himself  to  be  in  favor  of  the  joint  resolution  from  the 
house.  The  report  did  not  discuss  the  propriety  of  annexing  Texas, 
but  was  confined  to  the  consideration  of  the  mx)de  proposed  by  the  reso- 
lution. The  committee  concluded  that  if  it  could  be  effected  at  all  con- 
stitutionall}',  it  must  be  done  by  the  treaty -making  power. 

The  next  day  Mr.  Benton  submitted  a  bill,  providing,  "  That  a  state, 
to  be  formed  out  of  the  present  republic  of  Texas,  with  suitable  extent 
and  boundaries,  and  with  two  representatives  in  congress  until  the  next 
apportionment  of  representation,  shall  be  admitted  into  the  union,  by 
virtue  of  this  act,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  existing  states,  as  soon 
as  the  terms  and  conditions  of  such  admission,  and  the  cession  of  the 
remaining  Texan  territory  to  the  United  States,  shall  be  agreed  upon 
by  the  governments  of  Texas  and  the  United  States. 

"  2.  That  the  sum  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  be  appropriated 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  missions  and  negotiations  to  agree  upon  the 
terms  of  said  admission  and  cession,  either  by  treaty  to  be  submitted 
to  the  senate,  or  by  articles  to  be  submitted  to  the  two  houses  of  congress, 
as  the  president  may  direct." 

A  motion  by  Mr.  Berrien  to  refer  the  bill  to  the  committee  on  foreign 
relations  was  lost,  22  to  23. 

The  great  debate  in  the  senate  on  annexation  was  commenced  by  Mr. 
Morehead,  of  Kentucky,  the  13th  of  February,  on  a  motion  for  the  in- 
definite postponement  of  the  joint  resolution  from  the  house.  Those 
who  took  part  in  the  debate  in  favor  of  the  resolution  of  annexation, 
were  Messrs.  Buchanan,  Woodbury,  Henderson,  Colquitt,  Merrick, 
Ashley,  M'Duffie,  Allen,  Walker,  and  Johnson,  of  Louisiana.  Against 
annexation  wore  Messrs.  Morehead,  Rives,  Choate,  Barrow,  Simmons, 
Huntington,  Dayton,  Berrien,  Miller,  Bagby,  Upham,  Bates,  Crittenden, 
Archer,  Foster,  and  Woodbrid^e. 

Few  debates  have  ever  occurred  in  that  body  in  which  has  been  en- 
gaged a  stronger  array  of  talent,  or  which  have  been  more  highly  char- 
acterized by  legislative  decorum,  and  the  maintenance  of  senatorial 
dignity.  It  was  one  of  the  most  important  questions — perhaps  the  most 
important — ever  decided  by  an  American  legislature — the  incorporation 
of  an  independent  foreign  nation  into  our  own,  by  a  joint  resolution — 
an  act  which  was  regarded  universally  as  an  exercise  of  an  extremely 
doubtful  power,  and  by  many  as  unauthorized  by  the  constitution  upon  any 
just  principle  of  interpretation.  Although  the  question  had  excited  strong 
party  feeling,  the  reported  speeches  evince  entire  freedom  frCm  acrimony 
and  invective.  The  following  account  of  the  final  proceedings  of  the 
senate  upon  the  subject,  was  given  at  the  time  of  their  occurrence  : 

*'  The  most  intense  anxiety  has  pervaded  the  public  mind  for  the  last 


820  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

three  weeks,  and  up  to  the  time  at  whicli  we  go  to  press  with  this  number^ 
every  moment  adds  fresh  incident  to  the  topic.  For  two  weeks  the 
United  States  senate  chamber  has  been  the  focus.  Upon  that  body  the 
GREAT  QUESTION  devolvcd.  Daily  every  avenue  to  the  chamber  was 
crammed  by  persons  from  all  parts  of  the  union.  Foreign  ministers, 
agents,  and  officers  of  all  departments  of  the  government  were  there — 
citizens  and  strangers — male  and  female.  All  seemed  impressed  with  the 
gravity  and  importance  of  the  question.  The  debate,  for  talent  and  elo- 
quence, as  a  whole,  has  seldom  had  its  equal,  certainly  never  has  been 
surpassed  in  either  house  of  congress.  The  uncertainty  of  the  result — 
how  the  vote  would  be,  up  to  the  last  moment,  served  to  call  out  on  each 
side,  the  utmost  strength  of  intellect  and  ardor.  There  is  every  reason  to 
believe  that,  during  the  struggle,  the  majority  wavered  first  to  one  side 
and  then  to  the  other,  more  than  once.  Notwithstanding  the  receipt  of 
letters  from  the  leading  partisans  of  Grovernor  Wright,  of  New  York,  in 
favor  of  passing  the  resolutions,  and  the  consequent  calculation  upon  the 
vote  of  both  senators  from  that  state,  and  notwithstanding  the  defection 
of  one  of  the  Maryland  senators,  (Mr.  Merrick,)  from  the  whig  ranks, 
which  for  some  days  seemed  to  have  turned  the  scale  in  favor  of  the 
resolutions  from  the  house,  it  was  finally  ascertained  that  a  majority 
could  not  be  obtained  unless  the  friends  of  those  resolutions  would  con- 
sent to  a  modification  to  suit  Col.  Benton's  views.  Mr.  Bagby,  one  of 
the  senators  from  Alabama,  though  in  favor  of  annexation,  refused  his 
sanction  to  its  accomplishment  by  mere  legislative  resolution.  He 
insisted  upon  preserving  the  treaty-making  prerogative  of  the  senate." 

The  resolution,  as  it  came  from  the  house,  was,  as  has  been  stated, 
the  same  as  that  originally  offered  by  Mr.  Foster  of  the  senate.  As  the 
vote  was  about  to  be  taken,  Mr.  Walker,  of  Mississippi,  proposed  an 
amendment,  by  adding  a  resolution,  "  That,  if  the  president  of  the 
United  States,  shall,  in  his  judgment  and  discretion,  deem  it  most  advis- 
able, instead  of  proceeding  to  submit  the  foregoing  resolutions  to  the 
republic  of  Texas,  as  an  overture  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  for 
admission,  to  negotiate  with  that  republic  ;  then 

^^  Be  it  Resolved,  That  a  state,  to  be  formed  out  of  the  present  repub- 
lic of  Texas,  with  suitable  extent  and  boundaries,  and  with  two  repre- 
sentatives in  congress  until  the  next  apportionment  of  representation, 
shall  be  admitted  into  the  union,  by  virtue  of  this  act,  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing with  the  existing  states,  as  soon  as  the  terms  and  conditions  of  such 
admission,  and  the  cession  of  the  remaining  Texan  territory  to  the  United 
States,  shall  be  agreed  upon  by  the  governments  of  Texas  and  the  United 
States. 

"  2.  That  the  sum  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  be  appropriated 


ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS.  821 

to  defray  the  expenses  of  missions  and  negotiations  to  agree  upon  the 
terms  of  said  admission  and  cession,  either  by  treaty  to  be  submitted  to 
the  senate,  or  by  articles  to  be  submitted  to  the  two  houses  of  congress, 
as  the  president  may  direct." 

After  taking  a  recess,  the  senate  met  at  6  o'clock  to  determine  the 
question.  Mr.  Foster  proposed  an  amendment  to  that  of  Mr.  Walker, 
which  was  rejected.  Mr.  Archer  then  proposed  an  amendment,  directing- 
the  president  to  open  negotiations  with  Texas  for  its  annexation  to  the 
union.  This  was  lost  by  a  tie  vote,  26  to  26.  Mr.  Walker's  amendment 
then  came  up  and  was  adopted  :  ayes,  27;  noes,  25  ;.  every  member  being 
present.  The  resolution,  as  amended,  was  then  ordered  to  a  third  read- 
ing by  the  same  vote.  The  bill  was  then  read  a  third  time  amidst  a 
profound  silence,  and  without  the  yeas  and  nays  being  called,  and  passed. 

It  remained  for  the  house  to  pass  upon  the  amendment.  It  was  taken 
up  the  next  day,  (February  28.)  A  number  of  amendments  were  offered 
by  the  opponents  of  annexation,  with  the  view,  as  was  supposed,  to 
^'  stave  off"  the  question,  in  order  to  prevent  a  decision  at  this  session, 
two  days  only  remaining.  But  the  friends  of  the  measure,  being  bent 
upon  consummating  it  before  adjourning  on  that  day,  voted  down  all 
proposed  amendments,  and  succeeded  in  bringing  the  house  to  a  final 
vote  at  6  o'clock  in  the  evening.  The  amendment  of  the  senate  was 
concurred  in,  132  to  76.  The  resolutions  were  the  next  day,  (March  1,) 
approved  by  the  president ;  and  the  triumph  of  annexation  was  complete. 
For,  although  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Walker  submitted  it  to  the  option 
of  the  president  to  enter  into  negotiation  for  annexation,  with  the  view 
of  satisfying  the  scruples  of  senators  against  annexation  by  mere  resolu- 
tion, it  is  not  probable  that  either  Mr.  Tyler  or  Mr.  Polk  would  jeopard 
the  measure  by  negotiation.  It  was  said,  however,  that  Messrs.  Benton 
and  Bagby,  without  whose  votes  the  resolutions  would  have  been  lost, 
both  voted  for  them  from  their  confidence  that  Mr.  Polk,  upon  whom  it 
was  supposed  the  choice  would  devolve,  would  elect  that  mode.  But 
Mr.  Tyler,  contrary  to  the  general  expectation,  seized  upon  the  last 
moment  of  his  official  existence,  to  exercise,  himself,  the  power  conferred 
by  the  resolutions. 

During  the  pendency  of  this  important  question,  the  opinions  of  many 
of  our  most  eminent  private  citizens  were  made  public.  Mr.  Webster, 
January  23,  1844,  in  answer  to  a  letter  soliciting  an  expression  of  his 
opinion,  referred  to  a  speech  of  his  in  the  city  of  New  York,  delivered 
about  the  time  the  proposition  was  made  in  1837,  during  Mr.  Van 
Buren's  administration,  in  which  speech  he  had  stated  objections  to  the 
measure,  which  remained  unchanged.  He  objected  to  annexation  on 
constitutional  grounds.     The  constitution,  he  thought,  did  not  contem- 


822  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

plate  the  admission  of  new  states,  except  from  territory  then  belonging 
to  the  United  States.  Louisiana  had  been  since  acquired  from  France, 
who  had  just  obtained  it  from  Spain.  But  the  object  of  its  acquisition 
was  not  mere  extension  of  territory.  Spain  had  held  the  mouths  of  the 
great  rivers  which  rise  in  the  western  states,  and  flow  into  the  gulf  of 
Mexico.  She  had  disputed  our  use  of  these  outlets  to  the  sea,  and  our 
commerce  was  in  danger.  That  acquisition  had  necessarily  brought  ter- 
ritory with  it.  A  similar  necessity,  though  not  so  urgent,  had  led  to 
the  acquisition  of  Spain.  But  no  such  necessity  required  the  annexation 
of  Texas.  The  acceptance  by  the  old  congress,  •of  the  cession  of  terri- 
tory from  individual  states,  by  the  terms  of  which  new  states  might  be 
created  and  admitted  into  the  union,  it  seemed  reasonable  to  confine  this 
provision  to  states  to  be  formed  out  of  territory  then  belonging  to  the 
United  States.  From  what  could  be  learned  from  the  circumstances, 
and  from  men's  opinions  and  expectations  at  that  day,  no  idea  was  enter- 
tained of  bringing  into  the  union  states  formed  out  of  the  territories  of 
foreign  powers.  Indeed,  much  jealousy  was  felt  toward  the  new  govern- 
ment, from  fears  of  its  overbearing  weight  and  strength,  when  proposed 
to  be  extended  only  over  thirteen  states.  And  he  mentions  it  as  an 
"  unaccountable  eccentricity  and  apparent  inconsistency  of  opinion,  that 
those  who  hold  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  to  be  a  compact 
between  states,  should  think,  nevertheless,  that  the  government  created 
by  that  constitution  is  at  liberty  to  introduce  new  states  formed  out  of 
foreign  territory,  with  or  without  the  consent  of  those  who  are  regarded 
as  original  parties." 

Mr.  Webster  objected  to  annexation,  on  the  ground  of  its  extending 
slavery.  He  said  :  "  By  whomsoever  possessed,  Texas  is  likely  to  be  a 
slaveholding  country  ;  and  I  frankly  avow  my  entire  unwillingness  to  do 
any  thing  which  shall  extend  the  slavery  of  the  African  race  on  this 
continent,  or  add  slaveholding  states  to  the  union."  The  constitution, 
he  said,  found  slavery  among  us,  and  gave  it  solemn  guaranties.  To  the 
extent  of  these  we  were  bound  in  honor  and  justice.  But  when  new 
states  claimed  admission,  our  rights  and  duties  were  both  difi'erent.  He 
said :  "  When  it  is  proposed  to  bring  new  members  into  this  political 
partnership,  the  old  members  have  a  right  to  say  on  what  terms  such 
new  partners  are  to  come  in,  and  what  they  are  to  bring  along  with  them. 
In  my  opinion  the  people  of  the  United  States  ought  not  to  consent  to 
bring  a  new,  vastly  extensive,  and  slaveholding  country  large  enough 
for  half  a  dozen  or  a  dozen  states  into  the  union." 

General  Jackson,  from  the  numerous  letters  written  by  him  on  the 
subject,  seems  to  have  felt  a  deep  interest  in  the  subject.  A  letter 
written  by  him  as   early  as  February,   1843,  to  Hon.  A.  V.  Brown, 


ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS.  823 

though  not  published  until  a  year  or  more  afterward,  strongly  recom- 
mended the  annexation  of  Texas.  He  urged  as  a  reason  its  importance 
in  a  military  point  of  view.  In  support  of  his  proposition,  he  supposes 
the  case  of  Great  Britain  forming  an  alliance  with  Texas,  and  designing 
war  against  the  United  States,  and  says  :  "  Preparatory  to  such ;  a 
movement,  she  sends  her  20,000  or  30,000  men  to  Texas,  organizes 
them  on  the  Sabine,  where  her  supplies  and  arms  can  be  concentrated 
before  we  have  even  notice  of  her  intentions  ;  makes  a  lodgment  on  the 
Mississippi ;  excites  the  negroes  to  insurrection ;  the  lower  country  falls, 
and  with  it  New  Orleans;  and  a  servile  war  rages  through  the  whole 
south  and  west.  In  the  meanwhile  she  is  also  moving  an  army  along 
our  western  frontier  from  Canada,  which,  in  cooperation  with  the  army 
from  Texas,  spreads  ruin  and  havoc  from  the  lakes  to  the  gulf  of 
Mexico." 

This  letter  made  its  appearance  just  before  the  publication  of  Mr. 
Van  Buren's  letter  on  annexation.  Mr.  Van  Buren  being  known  to 
be  the  general's  favorite  candidate  for  the  presidency,  but  differing  with 
him  on  this  question,  it  became  a  matter  of  speculation  whether  Gen. 
Jackson  would  not  turn  his  influence  against  Mr.  Van  Buren.  The 
public  curiosity  was  soon  relieved,  however,  by  the  appearance  of  a 
letter  from  the  "  Hermitage,"  in  which  Gen.  Jackson  expresses  his  ad- 
herence both  to  annexation  and  to  Mr.  Van  Buren.  He  accounts  or 
apologizes  for  such  a  letter  by  saying,  that  it  was  "  evidently  prepared 
from  a  knowledge  only  of  the  circumstances  bearing  on  the  subject  as 
they  existed  at  the  close  of  his  administration,  without  a  view  of  the 
disclosures  since  made,  and  which  manifest  a  dangerous  interference 
with  the  affairs  of  Texas  by  a  foreign  power.  As  to  the  form  of  annexa- 
tion, I  do  not  think  it  material  whether  it  be  done  by  treaty,  or  upon 
the  application  of  Texas,  by  an  act  or  joint  resolution  of  congress." 
Several  other  letters  were  written  during  the  presidential  campaign,  in 
which  he  expressed  the  same  apprehension  as  to  the  designs  of  Great 
Britain.  The  question  was,  "  whether  Texas  and  Oregon  were  to  be 
considered  as  auxiliaries  to  American  or  to  British  interests."  He  alleged 
that  Texas  was  independent ;  and  therefore,  as  regarded  our  treaty  with 
Mexico,  good  faith  was  not  involved  in  our  decision. 

The  opinion  of  Mr.  Gallatin  having  been  requested  as  to  the  consti- 
tutionality of  Mr.  M'Duffie's  proposition  for  annexation,  which  was  by  a 
resolution,  declaring  the  rejected  treaty  to  be  the  fundamental  law  of 
union  between  the  United  States  and  Texas,  he  replies :  "  A  doubt  has 
been  suggested,  whether  the  general  government  has  the  right,  by  its 
sole  authority,  to  annex  a  foreign  state  to  the  union.  *  *  But 
it  is  unnecessary  on  this  occasion  to  discuss  that  question.     That  now 


824  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

at  issue  is  simply  this  :  In  whom  is  the  power  of  making  treaties  vested 
by  the  constitution?  The  United  States  have  recognized  the  inde- 
pendence of  Texas  ;  and  every  compact  between  independent  nations  is 
a  treaty."  The  constitution,  he  said,  gave  the  treaty-making  power  to 
the  president  and  senate.  The  senate  had  refused  to  give  its  consent 
to  the  treaty,  and  the  resolution  declared  that  it  should  nevertheless  be 
made  by  congress  a  fundamental  law  binding  on  the  United  States.  He 
says :  "It  substitutes  for  a  written  constitution,  which  distributes  and  de- 
fines powers,  the  supremacy,  or,  as  it  is  called,  the  omnipotence  of  a 
British  parliament."  He  considered  it  "  an  undisguised  usurpation  of 
power  and  violation  of  the  constitution." 

The  dispute  respecting  boundary  also  was  regarded  by  many  as  an 
insuperable  objection  to  annexation.  This  objection,  as  has  been  seen, 
was  strongly  urged  by  Mr.  Benton.  The  treaty,  so  far  as  it  related 
to  the  boundary  of  the  Bio  Grrande,  he  pronounced  "an  act  of  unpar- 
alleled outrage  on  Mexico — the  seizure  of  two  thousand  miles  of  her 
territory,  without  a  word  of  explanation,  and  by  virtue  of  a  treaty  with 
Texas  to  which  she  was  no  party." 

Senator  Wright,  of  New  York,  made  the  same  objection  to  voting 
for  the  treaty.  In  1844,  after  the  close  of  his  senatorial  services,  in 
addressing  a  public  meeting,  he  says  :  "  I  felt  it  my  duty  to  vote 
against  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  for  the  annexation.  I  believed 
that  the  treaty,  from  the  boundaries  that  must  be  implied  from  it,  em- 
braced a  country  to  which  Texas  had  no  claim,  over  which  she  had 
never  asserted  jurisdiction,  and  which  she  had  no  right  to  cede.  *  * 
It  appeared  to  me  then  if  Mexico  should  tell  us,  '  We  do  not  know 
you;  we  have  no  treaty  to  make  with  you,'  and  we  were  left  to  take 
possession  by  force,  we  must  take  the  country  as  Texas  has  ceded  it 
to  us,  and  in  doing  that,  we  must  do  injustice  to  Mexico,  and  take  a 
large  portion  of  New  Mexico,  the  people  of  which  have  never  been  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  Texas.  This  to  me  was  an  insurmountable  barrier : 
I  could  not  place  the  country  in  that  position." 

From  the  fact  that  Louisiana  was  said  to  have  extended  to  the  Bio 
Grande,  the  inference  has  been  drawn  by  some  that  that  river  formed 
the  south-western  boundary  of  Texas  ;  and  that  although  in  our  treaty 
with  Spain  for  Florida  we  had  relinquished  that  portion  of  Louisiana, 
the  reaunexation  of  Texas  would  restore  the  territory  to  that  boundary. 
But  it  was  maintained  that  Texas  never  extended  to  the  westernmost 
line  of  Louisiana,  as  was  evident  from  the  well-known  fact  stated  by 
Messrs.  Benton,  Wright,  and  others,  that  Texas  had  never  even 
attempted  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  towns  and  villages  along 
that  river  ;  nor  had  she  until  a  very  recent  period  claimed  the  Bio 


ANNEXATION    OF    TEXAS.  825 

Grande  to  be  the  boundary.  The  declarations  of  these  senators  are 
supported  by  Texan  authority.  A  map  of  Texas,  published  in  1837, 
and  prepared  by  Stephen  F.  Austin,  a  prominent  participator  in  the 
revolution,  gives  the  Nueces  as  the  south-western  boundary. 

Respecting  the  objects  of  annexation,  some  facts  have  already  been 
given.  Whatever  other  reasons  may  have  existed,  the  design  of  extend- 
ing and  strengthening  the  dominion  of  slavery  has  been  so  often,  openly 
and  officially  declared,  as  to  leave  no  doubt  that  this  was  at  least  one 
of  the  leading  objects  of  the  measure.  In  addition  to  the  numerous 
avowals  made  before  the  treaty  was  concluded,  is  the  acknowledgment 
of  the  secretary  of  state  after  it  had  been  signed.  Writing  to  our 
charge  in  Mexico,  he  requests  him,  in  making  known  to  the  Mexican 
government  the  fact  that  a  treaty  had  been  signed,  and  was  about  to  be 
sent  to  the  senate  for  ratification,  to  oflfer  as  a  reason  or  apology  for  the 
act,  "  that  the  step  was  forced  on  the  government  of  the  United  States 
in  self-defense,  in  consequence  of  the  policy  adopted  by  Great  Britain 
in  reference  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  Texas.  It  was  impossible  for 
the  United  States  to  witness  with  indijfference  the  efforts  of  Great 
Britain  to  abolish  slavery  there.  They  could  not  but  see  that  she  had 
the  means  in  her  power,  in  the  actual  condition  of  Texas,  to  accomplish 
the  objects  of  her  policy,  unless  prevented  by  the  most  efficient  mea- 
sures ;  and  that,  if  accomplished,  it  would  lead  to  a  state  of  things  dan- 
gerous in  the  extreme  to  the  adjacent  states  and  the  union  itself  See- 
ing this,  this  government  has  been  compelled,  by  the  necessities  of  the 
case,  and  a  regard  to  its  constitutional  obligations,  to  take  the  step  it 
has,  as  the  only  certain  and  effectual  means  of  preventing  it." 

But  while  the  leading  object  of  annexation  was  to  give  strength  and 
security  to  slavery,  the  measure  was  doubtless  aided  by  subordinate 
auxiliary  influences.  Mr.  Benton,  in  a  speech  at  Boonville,  Indiana,  in 
July,  1844,  declared  disunion  to  have  been  a  primary  object  of  the 
treaty  ;  an  intrigue  for  the  presidency  a  secondary  object ;  land  specu- 
lation and  stock-jobbing  auxiliary  objects.  He  said  tke  quantity  of 
land  claimed  bj  the  treaty  correspondence  was  200  millions  of  acres ; 
whereas  Texas  proper  contained  only  135,000  square  miles,  or  84,000,000 
acres  ;  the  rest  was  to  be  taken  from  Mexico.  To  represent  that  there 
was  any  considerable  quantity  of  good  lands  ungranted  in  Texas,  was  a 
fraud.  They  were  not  an  equivalent  for  the  ten  millions  of  Texas 
debts  which,  by  the  rejected  treaty,  the  United  States  were  to  assume. 

Mr.  Benton  said  the  four  objects  above  mentioned  had  brought  for- 
ward the  treaty  at  the  time  and  in  the  manner  in  which  it  came,  just 
forty  days  before  the  Baltimore  convention,  and  at  the  exact  moment  to 
mix  with  the  presidential  election,  and  to  make  dissension  and  mischief 


826  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

between  the  north  and  the  south.  He  confined  this  charge  to  the  prime 
movers  and  negotiators  of  the  treaty.  The  land-speculators  and  stock- 
jobbers had  acted  a  conspicuous  part  at  Washington.  "  The  city  was  a 
buzzard-roost !  The  presidential  mansion  and  the  department  of  state 
were  buzzard-roosts  !  defiled  and  polluted  by  foul  and  voracious  birds, 
in  the  shape  of  land-speculators  and  stock-jobbers,  who  saw  their  prey 
in  the  treaty,  and  spared  no  effort  to  secure  it.  Their  own  work  was  to 
support  the  treaty  and  its  friends — to  assail  its  opponents — to  abuse 
senators  who  were  against  it — to  vilify  them,  and  lie  upon  them  in 
speech  and  in  writing — to  establish  a  committee,  still  sitting  at  Wash- 
ington, to  promote  and  protect  their  interest." 

Speaking  of  the  debt  of  Texas,  and  of  the  interest  which  those  who 
held  this  debt  had  in  the  treaty,  Mr.  B.  said  :  "  And  what  a  debt ! 
created  upon  scrip  and  certificates  of  every  imaginable  degree  of  depre- 
ciation, and  now  held  by  jobbers,  most  of  whom  have  purchased  at  two 
cents,  and  five  cents,  and  ten  cents  in  the  dollar,  and  would  have  sent 
their  scrip  where  it  bore  six  per  cent.,  worth  upwards  of  one  hundred 
cents  to  the  dollar  the  day  the  treaty  was  ratified ;  and  where  it  bore  ten 
per  cent.,  as  three  millions  of  it  did,  would  have  been  worth  upwards  of 
two  hundred  cents  to  the  dollar.  All  this  to  go  to  the  benefit,  not  even 
of  Texas,  but  of  speculators,  and  that  while  the  United  States  refuse, 
and  justly  refuse,  to  assume  the  debts  of  her  own  states.  These  scrip 
holders  were  among  the  most  furious  treaty  men  at  Washington." 

Mr.  B.  then  proceeded  to  expose  the  fraudulent  statements  in  the 
treaty  correspondence,  that  only  sixty-seven  millions  of  acres  had  been 
granted ;  and  he  showed  from  documents,  a  large  number  of  grants,  one 
of  which  contained  forty-five  millions  of  acres,  nearly  equal  to  the  whole 
of  Kentucky  and  Ohio.  Some  of  them  covered  several  degrees  of  lati- 
tude. The  treaty  was  a  fraud  in  not  annulling  the  great  grants  made 
for  considerations  not  fulfilled.  Mr.  B.  repeated  the  charge  of  the  design 
of  disunion  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  other  southern  men.  To 
pick  a  quarrel  with  Great  Britain,  and  also  with  the  non-slaveholding 
states,  was  the  open,  undisguised  object  of  the  negotiation.  The  acqui- 
sition of  Texas  had  been  presented  as  a  southern,  sectional,  slaveholding 
question ;  and  the  adniission  of  Texan  states  was  to  be  submitted  to  a 
house  of  representatives,  of  whom  a  majority  of  forty-six  were  from  non- 
slaveholding  states.  This,  he  conceived,  was  to  be  done  to  have  the 
Texan  states  refused  admission,  and  a  pretext  furnished  the  southern 
states  for  secession.  All  this  was  so  well  known  in  South  Carolina,  that 
the  cry  of  "  Texas  or  disunion,"  had  been  raised,  not  only  before  the 
treaty  was  rejected,  but  before  it  was  made  ! 

Much  had  appeared  in  southern  papers  to  favor  the  suspicion  of  the 


ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS.  827 

designs  imputed  to  southern  politicians  by  Mr.  Benton.  A  Calhoun 
paper  at  Columbia,  South  Carolina,  after  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Van 
Buren's  letter  on  annexation,  announced  that  whigs  and  democrats  were 
dropping  their  party  differences,  and  uniting  like  brothers  upon  the 
question  of  annexation  "as  one  of  absolute  self-preservation."  Mr. 
Van  Buren  was  repudiated  as  a  candidate  for  president,  and  could  not 
be  elected,  if  he  should  be  nominated.  lie  and  Mr.  Clay  were  "  both 
dead,  dead,  dead,  in  the  whole  south."  Nothing  was  to  be  expected 
from  Cass  or  Stewart  against  the  tariff;  and  there  was  no  hope  of  the 
nomination  of  Tyler  or  Woodbury.  The  only  hope  of  the  south  was  in 
herself.  Fears  were  expressed,  that  the  treaty  would  be  rejected,  and 
that  "  Texas  would  be  thrown  into  the  arms  of  England." 

A  large  meeting,  attended  by  600  persons,  had  already  been  held  in 
the  Barnwell  district,  at  which  a  resolution  was  adopted  recommending 
measures  to  be  taken  with  a  view  to  a  southern  convention  of  the  friends 
of  annexation,  to  be  held  at  Nashville,  Tennessee,  to  further  the  object. 
And  a  proposition  from  a  citizen  of  Alabama  seemed  to  find  favor  at  the 
meeting,  which  was,  that  if  the  union  would  not  accept  Texas,  then  she 
should  be  annexed  to  the  southern  states.  And  it  was  proposed,  that  the 
proposed  convention  of  the  southern  states  should  request  the  president 
to  call  congress  together  immediately,  when  the  final  issue  should  be 
made  up,  and  the  alternative  distinctly  presented  to  the  free  states,  either 
to  admit  Texas  into  the  union,  or  to  proceed  peaceably  and  calmly  to 
arrange  the  terms  of  a  dissolution  of  the  union. 

At  another  meeting,  held  in  Beaufort,  the  tariff  of  1842  was 
denounced;  and  a  resolution  was  adopted,  declaring,  "  that  if  they  are 
not  permitted  to  bring  Texas  into  the  union  peaceably,  they  solemnly 
announce  to  the  world,  that  they  will  dissolve  the  union  sooner  than 
abandon  Texas."  At  a  meeting  in  Union  district,  it  was  declared:  "We 
desire  no  political  connection  with  the  declared  enemies  of  our  peace. 
We  neither  dally  nor  doubt.  We  hold  to  our  rights — give  up  the  union, 
and  leave  the  consequences  to  God."  Several  other  meetings  were  held, 
at  which  similar  resolutions  were  adopted,  and  a  southern  convention 
proposed.  Some  of  the  Carolinians  went  so  far  as  to  counsel  resistance 
by  "  state  action."  The  leading  advocate  of  this  measure  was  the  Hon. 
B.  B.  Rhett.  It  was,  however,  discountenanced  by  Mr.  Calhoun  and 
others,  who  were  not  yet  ready  for  that  kind  of  action. 

At  4th  of  July  celebrations,  disunion  was  the  leading  theme  of  ora- 
tions and  toasts.  On  most  occasions  a  southern  convention  was  men- 
tioned as  the  first  resort;  and  if  that  should  prove  unavailing,  then 
there  must  be  a  "  speedy  application  of  the  '  rightful  remedy.'  "  The 
union  was  spoken  of  as  of  little  consequence,  in  comparison  with  the 


828  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

annexation  of  the  "  lone  star"  to  "  the  glorious  galaxy  of  her  southern 
sisters."  One  toast  says  :  "  Give  us  Texas  or  '  divide  the  spoons.' " 
Another  :  "  Speedy  annexation  at  all  and  every  hazard."  Indeed,  the 
common  sentiment,  as  expressed  on  public  occasions,  was,  that  Texas 
must  be  annexed,  and  the  tariff  of  1842  must  be  repealed,  or  disunion 
would  take  place. 

The  idea  of  a  disunion  convention  at  Nashville,  did  not  find  favor  in 
Tennessee.  At  a  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Davidson  county,  resolu- 
tions were  adopted,  "  protesting  against  the  desecration  of  the  soil  of 
Tennessee  by  any  act  of  men  holding  within  its  borders  a  convention  for 
any  such  object."  Richmond,  Virginia,  having  been  proposed  by  some 
as  a  more  suitable  place  than  Nashville  for  the  convention,  an  expression 
of  feeling,  similar  to  that  of  the  citizens  of  Tennessee,  was  given  at  a  Clay 
meeting  in  Richmond,  against  the  holding  of  such  a  convention  "  in  the 
land  of  Washington — in  the  capital  of  the  state  of  his  birth." 

The  repeal  of  the  protective  tariff  was  scarcely  less  an  object  of  desire 
than  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  the  few  northern  democrats  who  had 
cooperated  in  defeating  M'Kay's  low  tariff  bill  at  the  preceding  session, 
were  made  the  special  objects  of  censure.  The  query  has  often  suggested 
itself,  whether  southern  statesmen  have  been  sincere  in  their  protesta- 
tions against  the  tariff  system  as  imposing  upon  them  such  intolerable 
burdens  as  in  their  view  to  justify  resistance,  or  as  taxing  them  at  all. 
What  has  led  many  to  suspect  their  sincerity  is,  that  the  question  as  re- 
gards additional  taxation  is  not,  or  need  not  be,  a  matter  of  speculation, 
but  is  susceptible  of  being  answered  by  a  reference  to  facts.  Purchasers 
can  not  help  knowing  when  they  are  compelled  to  pay  higher  prices.  Daily 
and  weekly  prices  current  determine  this  question  infallibly.  To  these  the 
advocates  of  protection  have  appealed  in  support  of  the  proposition  that 
prices  have  not  been  enhanced  by  adequate  protective  duties.  Since  at 
every  revision  of  the  tariff,  the  opponents  of  the  system  have  invariably 
predicted  an  oppressive  increase  of  prices,  no  such  permanent  result  hav- 
ing followed,  many  have  regarded  the  complaints  of  the  south  as  intended 
merely  for  effect. 

Whilst  efforts  were  making  in  congress,  in  1844,  to  reduce  the  duties 
imposed  by  the  act  of  1842,  which  was  represented  as  peculiarly  oppres- 
sive in  its  operations,  a  number  of  the  principal  merchants  in  the  city 
of  Richmond,  Virginia,  published  a  comparative  statement  of  wholesale 
prices  of  goods  in  the  various  branches  of  trade  in  that  city,  made  up 
from  actual  sales  in  the  year  1841,  when  the  tariff,  under  the  compro- 
mise act,  ranged  at  the  lowest  rates  of  duty,  and  in  1843,  the  first  year 
after  the  act  of  1842  went  into  operation.  Of  a  few  articles  only — some 
of  the  more  important — the  prices  are  here  given  : 


Prices  in  1841. 

Prices  in  1843. 

$85 

$70  to  75 

70 

57 

90 

77 

90 

81 

115 

95 

18 

14 

0  04 

0  03    to  0  0^ 

0  07 

0  OSJ  to  0  06^ 

0  12^  to  0  165 

0  09    to  0  14 

0  05    to  0  05i- 

0  03|  to  0  04 

1  90    to  2  25 

1  60    to  1  65 

WHOLESALE    PRICES   OF    GOODS.  829 

American  bar  iron,  per  ton, 
English  do  do 

Swedes  do  do 

Tredegar  Riclimond  manufacture 
American  blistered  steel,  per  ton 
Collins'  best  axes,  per  dozen 
Castings,  hollow,  per  pound 
Flat  iron,  do 

Anvils,  do 

Nails,  Richmond  made,  do 
Sack  salt  ranged  from 
Spades  and  shovels,  20  per  cent.  less. 
Cross  cut  and  mill  saws,  12J  per  cent.  less. 

Wood  screws,  though  prohibited  by  duty,  were  20  per  cent,  lower,  and 
of  a  much  superior  quality  to  those  formerly  imported. 

Prices  in  1841.  Prices  in  1843^ 

Cotton  osnaburgs         per  yard  8    to  10c  6^  to    75C 

3-4  brown  shirtings  "  6f  to    8^  4^  to    6i 

4-4      "  "  "  8J  to  1 1  6^  to    8^ 

6-4      "     sheetings  "  11     to  14^  8^  to  10^ 

Domestic  prints  "  12 J  to  18  8  J  to  12i 

During  the  year  1840,  say  these  merchants,  large  quantities  of  British 
prints  were  imported,  that  cost  from  22  to  28c  per  yard,  and  in  1843, 
prints  of  as  good  quality  were  produced  in  this  country  as  low  as  15c 
per  yard,  which  entirely  excluded  British  prints  from  our  markets. 

Irish  linens  were  imported  in  1841  duty  free;  in  1843,  with  a  duty 
of  25  per  cent.,  they  were  20  per  cent,  lower  than  in  1841. 

English  and  French  cloths  and  cassimeres,  paying  a  duty  of  38  per 
cent,  in  1841,  and  of  40  per  cent  in  1843,  had  fallen  not  less  than  20 
per  cent. 

From  a  statement  made  out  in  the  treasury  department,  it  appeared 
that  the  importations  of  gold  and  silver  coin  and  bullion  for  the  year 
ending  September,  1843,  amounted  to  $23,741,641.  During  the  ivjo 
preceding  years,  they  were  but  $9,075,649. 

It  was  apprehended  in  1842,  that,  by  raising  the  duties,  the  importations 
would  be  so  diminished  as  to  cause  a  serious  decrease  of  revenue.  [See 
report  of  the  minority  of  the  committee  on  manufactures,  Chapter 
LXIII.]  The  result  showed  the  apprehension  to  have  been  erroneous. 
The  average  yearly  amount  of  receipts  from  customs  for  the  years  1840, 
1841,  and  1842,  was  about  $16,000,000  j  for  the  years  1844,  1845,and 
1846,  it  was  upwards  of  $26,000,000  annually. 


830  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

To  the  foregoing  statements  may  be  added  the  fact,  that  the  rates  of 
exchange  and  interest  were  greatly  reduced.  Reports  of  the  money 
market  in  the  spring  of  1844,  state  that  good  paper  was  discounted  in 
some  of  the  eastern  cities  at  4  to  5  per  cent.,  owing,  it  was  said,  to  the 
reflux  of  specie  from  abroad,  and  especially  to  large  deposits  in  the 
banks,  as  a  result  of  the  general  prosperity  of  the  country. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  which  southerners  themselves  did  not  contro- 
vert, the  question  recurs,  Did  they  believe  their  own  representation  of 
the  injury  inflicted  upon  them  by  the  tarifi"?  As  to  the  cause  of  the 
improved  condition  of  the  country,  there  might  be  an  honest  diff'erence 
of  opinion,  while  in  respect  to  the  improvement  itself,  it  is  not  easy  to 
conceive  how  such  diff'erence  could  exist.  The  repeated  failures  of  their 
predictions  of  the  state  of  things  which  would  necessarily  follow  the 
adoption  of  protective  measures,  should  have  induced  them  at  least  to 
distrust  their  own  opinions.  But  it  was  with  them  a  fixed  theory,  that 
to  whatever  extent,  or  from  whatever  cause,  prices  may  have  been  re- 
duced, the  reduction  would  have  been  still  greater  had  not  the  duties 
been  imposed ;  and  the  supposed  injury  they  suffered  must  have  con- 
sisted, not  in  actual  enhancement  of  prices,  but  in  their  being  prevented 
by  the  tariff  from  falling  as  low  as  they  would  otherwise  have  done . 

The  presidential  term  of  John  Tyler  expired  on  the  3d  of  March, 
1845.  The  crowning  act  of  his  administration  was  the  annexation  of 
Texas.  AVhether  the  ultimate  benefits  of  the  acquisition  will  ever  counter- 
balance its  cost,  has  ever  been  a  matter  of  doubt.  To  the  debtor  side 
is  to  be  placed  the  war  with  Mexico,  with  its  concomitant  evils,  the 
least  of  which  was  the  debt  contracted  for  its  prosecution.  One  of  the 
declared  objects  of  the  measure  was  "  to  extend  the  area  of  freedom." 
One  of  its  consequences  must  infallibly  be  to  keep  alive  the  exciting  ques- 
tion of  slavery  for  an  indefinite  period,  perhaps  during  the  existence  of  the 
republic.  The  time  is  not  distant  when,  to  preserve  the  equilibrium  of 
the  slave  states — the  avowed  object  of  annexation — applications  will  be 
made  for  the  admission  of  new  states  formed  out  of  the  present  state  of 
Texas  ;  and  each  successive  demand  for  admission  will  revive  the  un- 
happy and  distracting  controversy. 

Another  eff'ect  has  been  apparently  to  weaken  resistance  to  the  extension 
of  slavery.  Each  concession  to  the  demands  of  the  slave-holding  states 
renders  the  next  more  easy.  The  fact  that  the  constitution  protects 
slavery,  and  permits  its  extension,  has  been  interpreted  into  an  argu- 
ment for  placing  it,  in  respect  to  political  power,  on  an  equal  footing 
with  freedom.  The  idea  is  by  no  means  confined  to  the  south,  that  this 
claim  of  slavery  to  political  equality  should  be  conceded  as  a  constitu- 
tional right.     This  sentiment  has  had  no  slight  influence  in  disposing 


INAUGURATION    OF    MR.    POLK.  831 

the  north,  on  each  admission  of  a  free  state,  to  allow  it  to  be  counter- 
poised by  the  simultaneous  admission  of  a  slave  state. 

Constitutions  for  state  governments  having  been  presented  to  congress 
by  the  territories  of  Florida  and  Iowa,  acts  were  passed  for  their  admission 
sls  states  into  the  union. 

An  act  was  passed  at  this  session,  to  establish  a  uniform  time  for 
choosing  presidential  electors  in  all  the  states.  Previously,  they  were 
required  to  be  chosen  within  thirty-four  days  before  they  were  to  meet 
in  their  respective  states  to  cast  their  votes  for  president  and  vice-presi- 
dent. By  the  act  of  1845,  the  election  in  all  the  states  for  choosing 
the  electors  is  on  the  Tuesday  next  after  the  first  Monday  of  November. 

The  first  act  for  the  great  reduction  of  postage,  was  also  passed  at 
this  session.  Postage  was,  by  this  act,  reduced  to  five  cents  on  single 
letters,  carried  not  exceeding  300  miles  ;  over  that  distance,  ten  cents. 


CHAPTER   LXVII. 

INAUOURATION     OF     MR.    FOLK. DEATH    OF     GEN.     JACKSON. WAR     WITH 

MEXICO. TREATY    OF    PEACE. 

James  K.  Polk  was  inaugurated  as  president  of  the  United  States,  on 
the  4th  of  March,  1845.  His  inaugural  address  was  one  of  unusual 
length,  and  presented  his  views  much  in  detail.  Having  descanted  on 
the  excellency  of  our  government,  and  the  value  of  the  union,  he  enjoined 
a  sacred  observance  of  the  compromises  of  the  constitution,  and  depre- 
cated interference  with  certain  "  domestic  institutions,"  as  an  "  attempt 
to  disturb  or  destroy  the  compromises  of  the  constitution,"  which  must 
"  lead  to  the  most  ruinous  and  disastrous  consequences."  He  expressed 
his  "  deep  regret,  that,  in  some  sections  of  our  country,  misguided  per- 
sons have  occasionally  indulged  in  schemes  and  agitations,  whose  object 
is  the  destruction  of  domestic  institutions  existing  in  other  sections  ;" 
but  he  was  "  happy  to  believe  that  there  existed  among  the  great  mass 
of  our  people  a  devotion  to  the  union  of  the  states  which  would  protect 
it  against  the  moral  treason  of  any  who  would  contemplate  its  destruc- 
tion." 

He  declared  his  opposition  to  "  national  banks  and  other  extraneous 
institutions,  to  control  or  strengthen  the  government."  He  regarded  it 
his  duty  to  recommend  and  ''  to  enforce  the  strictest  economy  in  the 


832  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

expenditure  of  the  public  money."  He  congratulated  the  people  "  on 
the  entire  restoration  of  the  credit  of  the  general  government,  and  that 
of  many  of  the  states."  His  policy  in  regard  to  the  tariff  is  shadowed 
forth  in  his  adoption  of  the  following  sentence :  "  Justice  and  sound 
policy  forbid  the  federal  government  to  foster  one  branch  of  industry  to 
the  detriment  of  another,  or  to  cherish  the  interests  of  one  portion  to 
the  injury  of  another  portion  of  our  common  country."  He  was  in  favor 
of  a  tariff  for  revenue  merely,  but  so  adjusted  as  to  afford  incidental  pro- 
tection to  home  industry. 

He  congratulated  the  country  on  the  reiinion  of  Texas  to  the  United 
States  :  it  only  remained  to  agree  upon  the  terms.  Other  governments 
had  no  right  to  interfere,  or  to  take  exceptions  to  their  reiinion.  "  The 
world,"  he  said,  "  has  nothing  to  fear  from  military  ambition  in  our  gov- 
ernment. While  the  chief  magistrate  and  the  popular  branch  of  congress 
are  elected  for  short  terms  by  the  suffrages  of  those  millions  who  must, 
in  their  own  persons,  bear  all  the  burdens  and  miseries  of  war,  our  gov- 
ernment can  not  be  otherwise  than  pacific."  The  annexation  was  "not 
to  be  looked  on  as  the  conquest  of  a  nation  seeking  to  extend  her  domin- 
ions by  arms  and  violence,  but  as  the  peaceful  acquisition  of  a  territory 
once  her  own;"  an  act  which  he  regarded  as  "  diminishing  the  chances 
of  war."  Nor  did  the  new  president  forget  to  reassert  "  our  title  to  the 
country  of  the  Oregon  to  be  '  clear  and  unquestionable,'  "  and  to  pledge 
himself  "  to  maintain,  by  all  constitutional  means,  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  that  portion  of  our  territory :"  and  he  recommended  that  the 
jurisdiction  of  our  laws  should  be  extended  over  our  emigrants  in  that 
country. 

Mr.  Polk's  cabinet  was  constituted  as  follows  :  James  Buchanan,  of 
Pennsylvania,  secretary  of  state ;  Robert  J.  Walker,  of  Mississippi, 
secretary  of  the  treasury ;  William  L.  Marcy,  of  New  York,  secretary 
of  war  ;  G-eorge  Bancroft,  of  Massachusetts,  secretary  of  the  navy ;  Cave 
Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  postmaster-general ;  John  Y.  Mason,  of  Virginia, 
attorney-general. 

In  June,  Louis  McLane,  of  Maryland,  (formerly  of  Delaware,)  was 
appointed  minister  to  Grreat  Britain,  in  the  place  of  Edward  Everett, 
recalled.  It  was  said  that,  before  the  selection  of  Mr.  McLane  for  this 
mission,  it  had  been  offered  successively  to  two  citizens  of  South  Caro- 
lina, Messrs.  Pickens  and  Elmore ;  and,  it  was  believed,  also  to  Mr.  Cal- 
houn, of  the  same  state,  and  Mr.  Woodburv,  of  New  Hampshire  ;  all  of 
whom  had  declined. 

On  the  8th  of  June,  1845,  Gren.  Jackson  died  at  his  residence,  the 
Hermitage,  aged  78  years.  The  announcement  of  this  event  produced 
a  deep  and  general  sensation  throughout  the  country.     Old  party  differ- 


WAR   WITH   MEXICO.  833 

ences  were  forgotten  ;  and  the  people  of  all  classes  and  parties  joined  in 
appropriate  demonstrations  of  respect  to  the  memory  of  the  departed 
hero  and  patriot.  However  public  opinion  may  have  been  divided  in 
relation  to  his  merits  as  a  statesman,  few  questioned  the  sincerity  of  his 
patriotism. 

Mr.  Polk,  on  his  accession  to  the  presidency,  had  upon  his  hands  two 
foreign  questions  to  dispose  of — the  controversy  with  Great  Britain 
respecting  her  claims  in  Oregon,  and  the  difficulty  with  Mexico  arising 
from  the  annexation  of  Texas,  still  claimed  by  the  former  as  a  part  of 
her  territory. 

On  the  6th  of  March,  1845,  only  six  days  after  the  date  of  the  act  of 
annexation,  the  Mexican  minister,  Almonte,  addressed  to  Mr.  Calhoun, 
secretary  of  state,  a  letter,  in  which,  pursuant  to  the  instructions  of  his 
government,  he  protested  against  the  act  of  congress  dismembering  the 
province  of  Texas,  an  integral  part  of  Mexican  territory,  and  admitting 
it  into  the  American  union.  He  declared  the  purpose  of  Mexico  to 
enforce  her  right  to  recover  the  territory  of  which  she  had  been  unjustly 
despoiled ;  and  he  gave  notice  of  the  termination  of  his  mission,  and 
asked  for  his  passports.  Mr.  Buchanan,  the  new  secretary  of  state,  in 
reply,  says,  the  president  trusts  that  the  government  of  Mexico  will  view 
the  act  in  a  more  favorable  light,  and  declares  "  that  his  most  strenuous 
efforts  shall  be  devoted  to  the  amicable  adjustment  of  every  cause  of  com- 
plaint between  the  two  governments."  On  the  arrival  of  the  news  of 
annexation  at  the  city  of  Mexico,  diplomatic  relations  between  the  two 
governments  there  too  were  abruptly  terminated ;  and  the  proceedings  of 
the  Mexican  congress  manifested  a  highly  belligerent  spirit. 

On  the  4th  of  June,  1845,  president  Jones,  of  Texas,  issued  a  procla- 
mation, stating  that  Mexico  was  disposed  to  a  peaceful  settlement  of 
difficulties,  by  acknowledging  Texan  independence,  if  Texas  would  main- 
tain her  separate  existence,  and  declaring  a  cessation  of  hostilities  against 
Mexico,  till  the  subject  could  be  laid  before  the  Texan  congress  and  con- 
vention of  the  people.  This  was  regarded  as  evidence  of  the  president's 
indisposition  toward  annexation.  The  congress  assembled  on  the  16th 
of  June,  pursuant  to  the  proclamation  of  president  Jones ;  who  com- 
municated the  resolutions  of  annexation  passed  by  the  United  States 
congress,  and  submitted  to  the  senate  the  treaty  proposed  by  Mexico  for 
acknowledging  the  independence  of  Texas,  upon  three  conditions,  viz. : 

(1.)  Texas  not  to  annex  herself  or  become  subject  to  any  country 
whatever.  (2.)  Limits  and  other  arrangements  to  be  matters  of  agree- 
ment in  the  final  treaty.  (3.)  Texas  to  consent  to  refer  the  disputed 
points  with  regard  to  territory  and  other  matters,  to  the  arbitration  of 
umpires.     The  senate,  it  was  said,  unanimously  rejected  the  proposition 

53 


834  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

from  Mexico,  and  adopted  resolutions  accepting  the  terms  for  annexation 
to  the  United  States. 

Mexico  considered  annexation  on  our  part  as  an  act  of  war,  and 
declared  her  intention  to  resent  the  injury,  and  to  resort  to  arms.  War 
appeared  for  a  time  to  be  inevitable.  In  compliance  with  the  request 
both  of  the  congress  of  Texas  and  the  convention  of  the  people,  our  gov- 
ernment sent  an  army  into  that  territory  to  defend  it  against  the  threat- 
ened invasion.  President  Polk,  in  his  message  to  congress  of  December, 
1845,  said  he  "  deemed  it  proper,  as  a  precautionary  measure,  to  order  a 
strong  squadron  to  the  coast  of  Mexico,  and  to  concentrate  a  sufficient 
military  force  on  the  western  frontier  of  Texas."  The  army,  he  said, 
had  been  ordered  to  take  position  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Del  Norte. 
Both  the  army  and  the  navy  had  been  instructed  to  commit  no  act  of 
hostility  against  Mexico,  unless  she  declared  war,  or  commenced  aggres- 
sions. The  result  had  been,  he  said,  that  Mexico  had  made  no  aggres- 
sive movement. 

The  president  complained  of  the  delinquency  of  Mexico  in  the  pay- 
ment of  the  instalments  of  the  indemnity.  Only  three  of  the  twenty 
quarterly  instalments  had  been  paid ;  and  seven  of  the  remainiog  seven- 
teen were  due.  The  claims  of  more  than  three  millions  which  had  been 
left  undecided  by  the  commission,  had  since  been  recognized  by  a  treaty 
providing  for  their  examination  and  settlement  by  a  joint  commission. 
This  treaty,  concluded  at  Mexico,  in  November,  1843,  had  been  ratified 
by  our  government,  but  it  had  not  yet  received  the  ratification  of  the 
Mexican  government. 

Not  possessing  the  power,  without  the  authority  of  congress,  to  enforce 
adequate  remedies  for  the  injuries  we  had  sufi"ered,  and  Mexico  having 
made  no  hostile  movement  for  many  weeks  after  our  army  and  navy  had 
been  on  the  frontier,  the  president  had  taken  measures  to  ascertain  the 
purposes  of  the  Mexican  government,  and  in  November  an  answer  had 
been  received,  declaring  its  consent  to  renew  diplomatic  relations.  A 
minister,  (Mr.  Slidell,  of  Louisiana,)  was  accordingly  sent,  with  power 
to  settle  all  pending  difficulties.  From  the  tone  of  the  message,  it  was 
reasonable  to  infer,  that,  if  negotiation  should  fail,  war  would  ensue. 

Whatever  hopes  may  have  been  entertained  of  a  successful  negotiation, 
were  soon  disappointed.  The  resumption  of  negotiations  was  agreed 
upon  with  the  government  of  Mexico  under  the  administration  of  presi- 
dent Herrera.  But  scarcely  had  our  minister  reached  his  destination, 
before  the  government  had  undergone  another  of  those  revolutions  which 
kept  that  country  in  a  state  little  better  than  one  of  complete  anarchy. 
Gen.  Paredes,  who  commanded  the  forces  destined  for  the  Texan  fron- 
tier, having  been  informed  of  the  intended  negotiation  by  which  it  was 


WAR    WITH    MEXICO.  835 

apprehended  that  a  part  of  the  Mexican  territory  was  to  be  surrendered  to 
the  United  States,  and  being  determined  to  prevent  it,  returned  with  his 
army  to  the  city  of  Mexico,  where  he  was  joined  by  the  regular  army, 
and  assumed  the  government.  It  appeared,  however,  that,  before  the 
arrival  of  Paredes,  the  government  had  refused  to  receive  our  minister, 
on  the  ground  of  the  inadequacy  of  his  special  power  to  treat  upon  the 
questions  which  were  intended  by  the  Mexican  government  to  be  made 
the  subject  of  negotiation.  Mr.  Slidell,  not  being  received,  retired  to 
Jalapa,  where  he  remained  until  the  28th  of  March,  1846,  when  he 
departed  for  home.  The  government  of  Mexico  refused  to  recognize 
him,  except  for  the  purpose  of  treating  in  relation  to  Texas  and  the 
boundary.  He  had,  in  obedience  to  his  instructions,  demanded  to  be 
received  as  a  minister  plenipotentiary. 

The  act  of  annexation  was  consummated  on  the  4th  of  July,  1845  ; 
the  people  of  Texas  represented  in  a  state  convention,  having  accepted 
terms  proposed  by  our  government.  Immediately  after  this  event,  the 
president,  aware  that  it  would  be  considered  by  Mexico  as  an  act  of  war 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  apprehending  hostilities  as  a  conse- 
quence, ordered  Gren.  Taylor  with  his  troops  to  some  place  on  the  gulf 
of  Mexico,  from  which  he  could,  when  necessary,  proceed  to  the  defense 
of  the  western  frontier  of  Texas.  The  place  selected  by  Gen.  Taylor, 
was  Corpus  Christi,  on  the  west  side  of  the  Nueces,  the  extreme  western 
settlement  made  by  the  people  of  Texas.  Gen.  Taylor  was  instructed 
by  the  department  not  to  disturb  "  the  Mexican  forces  at  the  posts  in 
their  possession"  on  the  east  side  of  the  Rio  Grande,  "  so  long  as  the 
relations  of  peace  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico  continue."  He 
was  repeatedly  directed  to  confine  his  defense  and  protection  of  Texan 
territory,  so  far  as  the  same  had  been  occupied  by  the  people  of  Texas, 
and  not  to  interfere  with  any  "  Mexican  settlements  over  which  the 
republic  of  Texas  did  not  exercise  jurisdiction  at  the  period  of  annexa- 
tion, or  shortly  before  that  event." 

The  army, after  having  been  at  Corpus  Christi  from  August  to  January, 
and  no  hostile  act  having  been  committed  by  the  Mexicans,  was  ordered, 
in  January,  1 846,  to  take  position  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande. 
It  left  Corpus  Christi  early  in  March,  Gen.  Taylor,  with  a  company 
of  dragoons  commanded  by  Col.  Twiggs,  in  advance  of  the  main  army, 
arrived  at  Point  Isabel,  on  th<3  north  side  of  the  Rio  Grande,  on  the 
24th  of  March,  the  distance  from  Corpus  Christi,  being  1 19  miles. 
Point  Isabel  is  a  few  miles  below  Matamoras,  which  is  on  the  opposite 
side  of  the  river.  The  fleet  of  transports  reached  the  same  place  half  an 
hour  after.  When  near  Point  Isabel,  Gen.  Taylor  was  met  by  a  depu- 
tation of  30  or  40  men,  with  a  message  from  Gen.   Mejia,  a  Mexican 


836  THE    AMERICAN    STATE&MAN. 

commander,  protesting  against  the  invasion.  On  tlie  approaeli  of  the 
fleet  of  transports,  the  custom-house  at  Point  Isabel,  and  several  other 
buildings  were  set  on  fire  by  the  Mexican  commandant,  and  consumed. 
On  the  28th,  the  army  of  occupation,  consisting  of  about  3,500  men, 
arrived  and  camped  opposite  Matamoras.  About  one  month  after  the 
arrival  of  our  army  at  the  Rio  Grande,  hostilities  were  commenced. 

On  the  1 1th  of  May,  congress  received  from  the  president  a  message, 
announcing  a  state  of  war,  which,  he  said,  had  been  commenced  on  the 
part  of  Mexico,  whose  government,  "  after  a  long-continued  series  of 
menaces,  had  at  last  invaded  our  territory,  and  shed  the  blood  of  our 
fellow-citizens  on  our  own  soil."  The  president  "invokes  the  prompt 
action  of  congress  to  recognize  the  existence  of  the  war,  and  to  place  at 
the  disposition  of  the  executive  the  means  of  prosecuting  the  war  with 
vigor,  and  thus  hastening  the  restoration  of  peace." 

A  bill  providing  for  raising  the  necessary  men,  and  money, 
($10,000,000,)  was  immediately  reported  in  the  house  of  representatives, 
and  passed  that  body  142  to  14.  The  senate  passed  it  the  next  morn- 
ing, after  a  slight  modification,  40  to  2,  and  returned  it  to  the  house  the 
same  evening.  The  next  day  (13th,)  the  amendments  of  the  senate  hav- 
ing been  concurred  in,  the  bill  was  signed  by  the  presiding  officers  of  the 
two  houses  and  the  president,  who  on  the  same  day  issued  the  war  pro- 
clamation. 

The  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  is  not  an  accurate  expression  of  the 
sentiment  of  either  house  on  the  war  question  in  general ;  but  only  as  to 
the  proper  course  to  be  pursued  under  existing  circumstances.  A  large 
number,  probably  most  of  the  whigs,  believed  the  war  to  be  unjust  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States ;  its  cause  being  the  dismemberment  of  a  part  of 
the  territory  of  Mexico.  They  also  considered  the  war  to  have  been  uncon- 
stitutionally made  by  the  president.  His  ordering  the  army  into  Mexican 
territory  was  an  act  of  war,  tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  war,  which  the 
constitution  devolved  exclusively  upon  congress.  Many  who  entertained 
these  views  voted  for  the  bill,  believing  that,  war  existing,  from  whatever 
cause,  or  however  unlawfully  made,  it  was  the  duty  of  every  citizen  to  sup- 
port it.  The  mass  of  those  even  who  had  throughout  denounced  the  course 
of  the  government  as  a  series  of  outrages  upon  the  rights  of  Mexico, 
seemed  to  concur  in  the  popular  sentiment :  "  Our  country,  right  or 
wrong" — "  We  are  in  a  war,  and,  however  unjust,  we  must  fight  it  out." 
Others  voted  for  the  bill  from  the  bare  motive  of  expediency y  remember- 
ing the  fate  of  those  who  opposed  the  war  of  1812. 

The  opponents  of  the  administration  being  known  to  differ  with  the 
majority  respecting  the  origin  and  the  justice  of  the  war,  and  yet  to  be  in 
favor  of  furnishing  supplies  for  the  army,  the  majority  took  advantage 


WAR    WITH    MEXICO,  837 

of  this  latter  fact  to  obtain  from  the  minority  a  formal  sanction  of  the 
war.  For  this  purpose,  the  bill  was  preceded  by  a  preamble,  declaring 
the  war  to  exist  by  the  act  of  the  republic  of  Mexico.  In  the  senate, 
appeals  were  made  to  the  majority  to  waive  this  declaration,  and  a 
motion  was  made  to  strike  out  the  preamble,  but  it  was  lost,  1 8  to  28. 
Several  of  the  minority  voted  for  the  bill,  trusting  to  a  future  oppor- 
tunity to  justify  themselves.  Some  voted  under  formal  protest;  and 
others  refused  to  vote  at  all.  Senators  Mangum,  John  M.  Clayton,  and 
Dayton,  had  their  protests  against  the  preamble  entered  on  the  journal. 
Thomas  Clayton  and  John  Davis  voted  in  the  negative. 

But  for  the  preamble,  the  bill  would  probably  have  passed  the  senate 
unanimously.  To  that,  there  were  two  objections.  One  was,  that  a  state 
of  war  did  not  exist ;  and  another,  that,  if  it  existed,  it  was  not  by  the 
act  of  Mexico.  The  latter,  of  course,  involved  the  question  of  boundary ; 
the  existence  of  war  by  the  act  of  Mexico  necessarily  presupposing  the 
Rio  Grande  to  be  the  boundary  between  that  country  and  Texas. 
Unless  this  was  the  fact,  it  was  not  true,  as  the  president  had  averred  in 
his  message,  that  Mexico  had  "  invaded  our  territory,  and  shed  the 
blood  of  our  fellow-citizens  on  our  own  soil." 

The  members  of  the  house  who  voted  against  the  bill,  were  Messrs. 
Adams,  Ashmun,  Grinnell,  Hudson,  and  King,  of  Massachusetts ; 
Severance,  of  Maine ;  Cranston,  of  Rhode  Island ;  Culver,  of  New 
York ;  Strohm,  of  Pennsylvania ;  Giddings,  Root,  Tilden,  and  Vance, 
of  Ohio, 

Garrett  Davis,  of  Kentucky,  asked  to  be  excused  from  voting  on  the 
bill.  No  opportunity  had  been  allowed  a  whig  to  say  a  word  upon  it. 
There  was  no  need  of  such  unparalleled  haste.  Gen.  Taylor  had,  in 
the  exercise  of  his  discretionary  power,  vested  in  him  by  the  executive, 
called  on  the  governors  of  the  contiguous  states  for  ten  thousand  troops, 
and  had  probably  ere  now  obtained  aid,  and  beaten  back  the  enemy. 
One  day  might  be  given  to  the  consideration  of  the  bill.  He  objected 
to  the  preamble  of  the  bill,  because  it  set  forth  a  falsehood.  It  was 
true  that  an  informal  war  existed ;  but  that  Mexico  commenced  it,  was 
utterly  untrue.  He  was  in  favor  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill ;  for, 
whether  on  our  own  territory  or  that  of  Mexico,  if  the  army  was  in 
danger,  he  would  vote  for  the  men  and  money  required  for  the  rescue. 
But  he  protested  against  defiling  the  measure  with  the  unfounded  state- 
ment that  Mexico  had  begun  the  war.  The  purpose  of  its  authors  was 
to  make  the  whigs  vote  against  the  administration,  or  force  them  to  aid 
in  throwing  a  shelter  over  it  by  voting  for  a  bill  which  set  forth  that 
this  needless  and  unexpected  war  was  commenced  by  Mexico. 

If,  said  Mr.  D.,  the  bill  contained  any  recitation  on  that  point,  in 


838  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

truth  and  in  justice,  it  should  be  that  this  war  had  been  begun  by  the 
president.  The  Nueces  was  the  boundary.  The  country  between  that 
river  and  the  Del  Norte  was  in  possession  of,  and  inhabited  by,  Mexico. 
The  president  had  of  his  own  will  ordered  Gen.  Taylor  and  his  army  to 
take  post  at  Corpus  Christi,  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Nueces,  and, 
several  months  afterward,  he  had  ordered  him  through  the  disputed 
country  to  the  Del  Norte.  The  Mexican  authorities  had  met  him,  and 
protested  against  the  aggression,  and  warned  him  to  retire  east  of  the 
Nueces,  or  he  would  be  deemed  to  be  making  war  upon  Mexico ;  and  they 
would  resort  to  force.  In  execution  of  his  orders  from  the  executive, 
he  presses  on  to  Matamoras,  mounts  a  battery  of  cannon  within  three 
hundred  yards  of  it,  whence  he  could,  in  a  few  hours,  batter  it  down. 
He  then  blockades  the  port  of  Matamoras,  orders  off  English  and 
American  vessels,  and  directs  the  capture  of  a  Spanish  schooner.  The 
Mexican  commander  treats  these  acts  as  acts  of  war ;  and  on  the  25th 
of  April,  Gen.  Taylor  is  informed  by  a  messenger  from  the  Mexican 
camp,  that  hostilities  exist,  and  will  be  prosecuted  according  to  the 
laws  of  civilized  nations.  That  night  a  detachment  of  the  Mexican 
army  crosses  the  Rio  Grande ;  Gen.  Taylor  sends  out  a  scouting  party 
to  reconnoitre,  which  attacks  the  Mexicans,  and  is  defeated  and 
captured  by  the  Mexicans ;  and  thus  war  is  raging  in  bloody  earnestness. 
It  was  our  own  president  who  had  begun  this  war.  He  had  been 
carrying  it  on  for  months  in  a  series  of  acts.  Congress,  which  was  vested 
with  the  sole  power  to  make  war,  he  had  not  deigned  to  consult,  or  to 
ask  for  authority.  Now,  when  it  had  unexpectedly  broke  forth  in 
bloody  reverses,  his  friends  sought  to  protect  him  by  charging  Mexico 
with  being  the  author  of  the  war ;  and  he,  in  cold  blood,  taught  others 
to  sacrifice  a  brave  and  veteran  officer,  whenever  it  might  become  neces- 
sary to  cover  his  mistakes  and  incompetency.  He  had  got  the  nation 
into  difficulty,  from  which  he  could  not  relieve  it ;  and  he  now  asked 
congress  to  assume  his  duties  and  responsibilities.  Mr.  D.  repeated  his 
readiness  to  vote  for  supplies,  at  the  same  time  protesting  against  the 
falsehood.  He  would  fight  the  Mexicans  until  we  drove  them  across  the 
Rio  Grande,  and  retrieved  our  renown.  He  would  then  withdraw  our 
army  to  the  east  side  of  the  Nueces,  and  settle  by  treaty  all  our  disputes 
with  that  weak  and  distracted  country  upon  the  most  liberal  terms. 
''^  A  history  of  this  war  does  not  come  within  the  design  of  this  work. 
It  may  be  remarked,  in  general,  that  it  was  attended  with  a  succession 
of  brilliant  achievements  by  the  two  distinguished  generals,  Taylor  and 
Scott.  The  triumphant  march  of  the  latter  to  the  Mexican  capital,  has 
scarcely  a  parallel  in  modern  times.  But  the  glory  acquired  by  the 
success  of  our  arms,  was  obtained  at  an  immense  sacrifice.     The  loss  of 


WAR   WITH   MEXICO.  S39 

life  on  the  several  fields  of  battle,  though  great,  was  far  exceeded  by 
death  from  sickness.  Such  was  the  mortality  among  our  troops,  that 
almost  whole  companies  were  cut  down  by  disease.  The  expenses  of 
the  war,  though  comparatively  a  minor  consideration,  were  enormous, 
the  most  extravagant  prices  having  been  paid  for  almost  every  thing 
hired  or  purchased.  The  painful  rupture  of  the  domestic  relations — 
the  sorrows  and  sufferings  of  widowhood  and  orphanage — the  demoral- 
izing effects  upon  society — all  of  which  are  the  inseparable  concomitants 
of  war,  are  evils  of  incalculably  greater  magnitude,  which  find  no  equiv- 
alent in  any  mere  territorial  acquisition. 

On  the  fourth  of  August,  1846,  the  president  sent  to  the  senate  a 
confidential  message,  informing  that  body  that  he  had  resolved  on 
making  proposals  for  opening  a  negotiation  with  Mexico — a  letter  con- 
taining such  overture  being  already  on  the  way  to  that  country^ — and 
asking  of  congress  an  appropriation  of  money  to  aid  him  in  negotiating 
a  peace.  The  object  of  the  money  was  the  purchase  of  Mexican  terri- 
tory, if  the  same  should  be  deemed  expedient.  A  bill  for  appropriating 
two  millions  of  dollars  for  this  purpose,  was  introduced  in  the  house  of 
representatives.  In  the  rapid  progress  of  this  bill  towards  its  consum- 
mation, Mr.  Wilmot,  of  Pennsylvania,  moved  a  proviso,  which  was  car- 
ried, declaring,  that,  as  a  condition  to  the  acquisition  of  any  territory 
from  Mexico,  by  virtue  of  any  treaty  that  might  be  negotiated,  slavery 
should  never  exist  in  any  part  of  the  said  territory.  This  amendment 
induced  many  of  its  friends  to  vote  against  the  bill,  which  was  passed, 
notwithstanding,  by  a  majority  of  six  votes,  and  sent  to  the  senate  on 
Saturday  night,  (August  11,)  but  too  late  to  be  acted  upon  that  night. 

Before  the  bill  came  up  in  the  senate  on  Monday,  the  plan  was  said 
to  have  been  formed  of  introducing  the  appropriation,  freed  from  Mr. 
"Wilmot's  proviso,  as  an  amendment  to  the  civil  appropriation  bill ;  buw 
the  design  was  abandoned  from  an  apprehension  that  it  would  cause  the 
loss  of  the  whole  mass  of  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  govern- 
ment. The  bill,  as  it  came  from  the  house,  was  taken  up  about  twenty 
minutes  before  twelve  o'clock,  the  hour  fixed  for  closing  the  legislative 
session.  In  the  midst  of  the  debate,  when,  as  was  supposed,  there  re- 
mained yet  ten  minutes  to  dispose  of  the  question,  the  house,  whose 
clock  was  ten  minutes  faster  than  that  of  the  senate,  was  adjourned  by 
the  speaker ;  and  the  action  of  the  senate  was  abruptly  terminated. 
Thus  was  lost  the  proposition  for  money  to  buy  territory  and  a  peace 
from  Mexico.  From  the  introduction  of  the  anti-slavery  provision  of 
this  bill,  is  derived  the  familiar  title  of  the  "  Wilmot  proviso,"  which 
has  since  been  so  generally  applied  to  similar  provisions.  It  is  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  the  proviso  in  the  celebrated  ordinance  of  1787, 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  territory  north-west  of  the  Ohio. 


840  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

During  the  interval  between  the  adjournment  of  congress  in  August, 
and  its  reassembling  in  December,  nothing  occurred  to  change  essentially 
the  aspect  of  our  relations  with  Mexico.  The  commerce  of  Great  Bri- 
tain had  been  materially  affected  by  the  war  between  the  United  States 
and  Mexico.  Her  annual  export  trade  to  the  latter  country  amounted 
to  ^5,000,000.  British  capitalists  also  had  $10,000,000  invested  in  the 
mines  of  Mexico  ;  and  the  public  debt  of  Mexico  to  Great  Britain  was 
about  the  same  amount.  Deeply  solicitous,  therefore,  for  the  restoration 
of  peace  between  the  two  x\.merican  republics,  the  British  government 
had  twice  during  the  summer  offered  to  mediate.  The  first  of  these 
offers  having  been  made  before  the  settlement  of  the  Oregon  controversy, 
and  Great  Britain,  consequently  being  herself  sensible  that  she  did  not 
occupy  the  position  of  unbiased  impartiality,  the  offer  was  merely  to  the 
effect,  that,  if  the  United  States  were  disposed  to  accept  the  mediation, 
it  would  be  tendered.  Subsequently,  the  Oregon  question  having  been 
settled,  an  explicit  offer  was  made,  which,  however,  was  not  favorably 
received  by  our  government. 

The  29th  congress  reassembled  on  the  7th  of  December,  1846.  The 
major  part  of  the  president's  message  was  devoted  to  a  detailed  history 
of  our  difficulties  with  Mexico.  He  recapitulated  the  wrongs  commit- 
ted by  Mexico,  and  the  causes  of  the  war ;  declared  its  justice  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States ;  our  disposition  to  peace  and  harmony,  and 
our  right  to  annex  Texas ;  and  he  repeated  the  charge  against  Mexico  of 
having  invaded  our  soil.  As  the  truth  of  this  charge  depended,  of  course, 
upon  the  validity  of  the  claim  of  Texas  to  all  the  territory  east  of  the  Bio 
Grande,  he  asserted  the  justice  of  that  claim,  in  opposition  to  Messrs. 
Benton,  Wright,  Adams,  and  others.  He  founded  this  assertion  upon 
the  acknowledged  fact,  that  Louisiana^  as  acquired  in  1803,  extended 
to  that  river,  and  upon  the  assumption  of  what  was  by  them  denied, 
that  Texas  extended  to  the  western  boundary  of  ancient  Louisiana  ;  it 
being  beyond  dispute,  that  Texas  had  never  exercised  any  jurisdiction 
whatever,  over  the  inhabitants  in  the  valley  of  the  Bio  Grande.  He 
also  mentioned  the  non-acceptance  of  the  offers  of  our  government  to 
negotiate  peace,  and  the  continued  refusal  to  receive  a  minister  from  the 
United  States. 

As  one  of  the  evidences  of  the  independence  of  Texas,  the  president 
referred  to  the  treaty  made  with  Texan  authorities  by  Santa  Anna,  in 
1836,  when  prisoner  of  war,  in  which  he  acknowledged  the  independence 
of  Texas.  The  allegation  that,  in  the  condition  of  a  prisoner,  he  was 
incapable  of  making  a  treaty  binding  upon  his  government,  and  the  fact 
that  the  act  was  disavowed  by  that  government,  the  president  seemed  to 
think  were  countervailed  by  the  facts,  that  he  had  been  defeated  in  his 


WAR    WITH   MEXICO.  841 

attempt  to  conquer  Texas ;  that  his  authority  had  not  been  revoked ; 
and  that  by  virtue  of  this  treaty  he  had  obtained  his  release,  and  hostili- 
ties had  been  suspended. 

Santa  Anna,  who  had  been  expelled  from  power  and  banished  by  a 
revolution  in  1844,  was  an  exile  in  Cuba  when  the  war  commenced.  He 
had  subsequently  been  permitted,  by  the  authority  of  Mr.  Polk,  to  pass 
the  blockade,  and  return  to  Mexico,  where,  it  was  apprehended,  he  would 
be  again  found  in  command  of  the  Mexican  army.  The  president,  hav- 
ing been  censured  by  the  opposition  for  this  act,  he  offered,  in  justifica- 
tion, that  there  was  no  prospect  of  a  pacific  adjustment  with  the  govern- 
ment of  Paredes;  that  there  were  symptoms  of  a  new  revolution  in 
Mexico ;  that  there  was  a  large  party  in  favor  of  Santa  Anna,  who  had 
professed  to  entertain  views  favorable  to  the  United  States,  and  with 
whom  it  was  probable  a  settlement  of  difficulties  might  be  effected.  For 
these  reasons  he  had  permitted  his  return  to  Mexico. 

Santa  Anna  arrived  at  the  city  of  Mexico  the  15th  of  September. 
The  revolution  had  already  taken  place.  The  offer  of  the  supreme 
executive  power  was  at  once  made  to  him  on  the  part  of  the  provisional 
government  organized  by  General  Salas,  after  the  fall  of  Paredes. 
Santa  Anna  declined  the  offer  of  the  civil  supremacy,  but  assumed  the 
military  command,  declaring  that  he  would  ''  die  fighting  the  perfidious 
enemy,  or  lead  the  Mexicans  to  victory."  Near  the  close  of  the  year, 
he  was  elected  provisional  president.  In  a  correspondence  with  Gen. 
Taylor,  he  declared  that  Mexico  would  not  listen  to  overtures  of  peace, 
unless  the  national  territory  should  be  first  evacuated  by  our  forces,  and 
our  vessels  of  war  withdrawn  from  their  hostile  attitude. 

A  bill  was  passed,  authorizing  the  issue  of  treasury  notes  and  the 
negotiation  of  a  loan  or  loans,  to  the  amount  -of  $28,000,000.  A 
bill  was  also  introduced  for  an  appropriation  of  $3,000,000,  for  the 
same  purpose  as  that  of  the  preceding  session  for  $2,000,000,  to  which 
the  Wilmot  proviso  had  been  attached,  and  which  had  been  lost.  Before 
the  passage  of  the  bill,  Mr.  Hamlin,  of  Ohio,  moved  the  "  Wilmot  pro- 
viso" as  an  amendment.  This  proviso,  after  an  unsuccessful  motion  of 
Mr.  Douglas  to  amend  by  prohibiting  slavery  in  acquired  territory  north 
of  36  deg.  30  min.,  was  adopted,  110  to  89.  The  bill  finally  passed 
the  house,  115  to  110.  A  similar  bill  was  also  reported  in  the  senate, 
in  which  body  the  "  Wilmot  proviso,"  moved  by  Mr.  Upham,  of  Ver- 
mont, was  rejected,  21  to  31 ;  and  the  bill  was  passed,  (March  1,)  29  to 
24.  The  bill  was  sent  to  the  house  of  representatives,  where  it  was 
taken  up  the  last  day  of  the  session,  (March  3,)  and,  on  motion  of  Mr. 
Wilmot,  amended  in  committee  of  the  whole,  by  the  adoption  of  the 
anti-slavery  proviso,  90  to  80,  and  so  reported  to  the  house.     But  the 


842  THE  AMERICAN  STATESMAN. 

house  disagreed  to  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  whole,  97  to  102 , 
and  the  bill  was  finally  passed  by  the  house  without  the  proviso,  115 
to  81. 

In  the  senate,  the  debate  on  the  three  million  bill  was  one  of  more 
than  ordinary  interest.  It  was  animated  and  protracted,  and  was  par- 
ticipated in  by  a  large  number  of  the  senators.  The  whole  war  question 
was  reviewed.  A  somewhat  sharp  collision  took  place  between  Mr.  Cal- 
houn and  Mr.  Benton,  who  differed  in  relation  both  to  the  objects  of  the 
war,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  should  in  future  be  conducted.  Mr.  Ben- 
ton urged  the  plan  of  the  administration,  which  contemplated  a  vigorous 
prosecution  of  ofiensive  war,  and  an  effort,  after  reducing  Vera  Cruz,  to 
penetrate  the  country  to  the  city  of  Mexico.  Mr.  Calhoun's  plan,  (pre- 
viously suggested  by  Mr.  Berrien,)  was  to  take  and  hold  the  Mexican 
posts,  assume  a  line  of  boundary  on  which  we  would  be  content  to  settle 
all  difficulties,  retire  our  forces  to  that  line,  and  defend  all  within  that 
boundary,  until  Mexico  should  be  willing  to  make  peace  by  conceding 
to  those  limits ;  her  posts  to  be  then  relinquished. 

Mr.  Calhoun,  in  relation  to  the  objects  of  the  war,  said  they  appeared 
to  him,  from  an  examination  of  the  president's  message,  to  be  threefold: 
(1.)  To  repel  invasion;  (2.)  To  establish  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  .the  west- 
ern boundary ;  (3).  To  obtain  payment  of  the  indemnities  due  our  citi- 
zens for  claims  against  Mexico.  The  president  had  not  recommended 
that  congress  should  declare  war ;  he  assumed  that  it  existed  already, 
and  called  upon  congress  to  recognize  its  existence.  That  the  war 
existed,  and  that  blood  had  been  spilled  on  American  soil,  he  had 
assumed,  on  the  ground  that  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  the  western  bound- 
ary of  Texas.  And  congress,  in  declaring  that  war  had  been  made  by 
Mexico,  had  recognized  that  river  as  the  boundary.  Hence,  the  crossing 
of  that  river  by  the  Mexicans  was  considered  invasion,  which  was  to  be 
repelled.  These  two,  repelling  invasion,  and  establishing  boundary, 
were  primary  objects;  and,  being  involved  in  the  war,  the  object  of 
indemnity,  though  not  a  sufficient  cause  of  war  in  itself,  yet,  being 
involved  in  war,  might  be  made  one  of  the  objects  for  which  the  war 
should  be  prosecuted. 

Mr.  Benton  defended  the  president  from  the  blame  of  the  war,  and 
charged  it  upon  Mr.  Calhoun.  The  causes  of  the  war  were  farther  back 
than  the  march  to  the  Rio  Grande.  They  began  with  the  cession  of 
Texas  to  Spain  in  1819,  by  the  Florida  treaty.  Mr.  C.  was  one  of  the 
majority  of  Mr.  Monroe's  cabinet,  who  had  given  it  away;  the  blame 
of  which  had  long  been  unjustly  charged  upon  Mr.  Adams,  the  negotia- 
tor of  the  treaty,  who,  it  was  said,  desired  to  clip  the  wings  of  the  slave- 
holding  states.     Mr.  B.  next  adverted  to  the  direct  proofs  of  the  sen- 


WAR    WITH   MEXICO.  843 

ator's  authorship  of  the  war.  On  the  first  rumors  of  the  victory  of  San 
Jacinto,  he  had,  in  the  senate,  proposed  the  immediate  recognition  of 
the  independence  of  Texas,  and  her  admission  as  a  state  ;  and  urged,  as 
a  reason  for  the  admission,  that  it  would  prevent  that  country  from 
having  the  power  to  annoy  the  slaveholding  states.  This  act  would 
have  plunged  us  into  instant  war  with  Mexico.  Mr.  B.  referred  to  the 
correspondence  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  as  secretary  of  state,  with  the  British 
ministers,  in  which  he  had  avowed  the  determination  of  the  government 
to  maintain  the  principles  of  slavery ;  and  in  carrying  out  that  determi- 
nation, he  had  induced  Mr.  Tyler  to  adopt  the  course  he  did,  on  the  last 
day  of  his  presidency,  which  measure  had  precipitated  us  into  the  war. 

The  choice  which  the  alternative  resolutions  gave  as  to  the  mode  of 
annexation,  properly  belonged  to  the  new  president.  So  strong  was 
the  expectation  that  this  choice  would  be  left  to  Mr.  Polk,  that  the 
suggestion  that  it  might  be  snatched  out  of  his  hands  by  the  expir- 
ing administration,  a  senator  (Mr.  M'Duffie)  had  declared  that  they 
would  not  have  the  audacity  to  do  it.  But  they  did  have  the  audacity. 
They  did  do  it !  or  rather  he  did  it,  (looking  to  Mr.  Calhoun ;)  for  Mr. 
Tyler  was  nothing  in  anything  relating  to  the  Texas  question,  from  the 
time  of  the  arrival  of  his  secretary  of  state.  "  On  Sunday,  the  2d  of 
March,  the  day  which  preceded  the  last  day  of  his  authority,  on  that 
day,  sacred  to  peace,  the  council  sat  that  acted  on  the  resolutions,  and 
in  the  darkness  of  a  night  howling  with  the  storm,  and  battling  with  the 
elements,  as  if  heaven  warred  upon  the  audacious  act,  (for  well  do  I 
remember  it,)  the  fatal  messenger  was  sent  off,  who  carried  the  selected 
resolution  to  Texas.  The  act  was  done  :  Texas  was  admitted  :  all  the 
consequences  of  admission  were  incurred,  and  especially  that  which  Mr. 
De  Bocanegra  (the  Mexican  minister)  had  denounced,  and  which  our 
secretary  had  accepted — war."  History,  Mr.  B.  said,  would  write  him 
(Mr.  C.)  down  the  author  of  that  calamity  just  so  certainly  as  it  had 
made  Lord  North  the  cause  of  the  war  of  the  revolution. 

Mr.  Benton  said  :  "  He  now  sets  up  for  the  character  of  pacificator  ; 
with  what  justice,  let  the  further  fact  proclaim  which  I  now  expose." 
He  said  there  were,  in  the  summer  of  1844,  three  hundred  newspapers 
in  the  pay  of  the  department  of  state,  which  spoke  the  sentiments  of 
that  department,  and  denounced  as  traitors  all  who  were  for  peaceable 
annexation  by  settling,  at  the  same  time,  the  boundary  line  of  Texas 
with  Mexico.  Those  papers  acted  under  instruction  ;  in  proof  of  which, 
he  read  from  a  letter  as  follows  :  , 

"As  the  conductor  of  a  public  journal  here,  he  has  requested  me  to 
answer  it,  (your  letter,)  which  request  I  comply  with  readily.  *  *  * 
With  regard  to  the  course  of  your  paper,  you  can  take  the  tone  of  the 


844  THE    AMERICAN   STATESMAN. 

administration  from  the  *  *  *  *  *.  I  think,  however,  and  would 
recommend  that  you  would  confine  yourself  to  attacks  upon  Benton, 
showing  that  he  has  allied  himself  with  the  whigs  on  the  Texas  question. 
Quote  Jackson's  letter  on  Texas,  where  he  denounces  all  those  as 
traitors  to  the  country  who  oppose  the  treaty.  Apply  it  to  Benton. 
Proclaim  that  Benton,  by  attacking  Mr.  Tyler  and  his  friends,  and 
driving  them  from  the  party,  is  aiding  the  election  of  Mr.  Clay  ]  and 
charge  him  with  doing  this  to  defeat  Mr.  Polk,  and  insure  himself  the 
succession  in  1848;  and  claim  that  full  justice  be  done  to  the  acts  and 
motives  of  John  Tyler  by  the  leaders.  Harp  upon  these  strings.  Do 
not  propose  the  union  :  '  it  is  the  business  of  the  democrats  to  do  this, 
and  arrange  it  to  our  perfect  satisfaction.'  I  quote  here  from  our  lead- 
ing friend  at  the  south.  Such  is  the  course  which  I  recommend,  and 
which  you  can  pursue,  or  not,  according  to  your  real  attachment  to  the 
administration.  *  *  *  Look  out  for  my  leader  of  to-morrow  as  an 
indication,  and  regard  this  letter  as  of  the  most  strict  and  inviolate 
confidence  of  character." 

Mr.  Calhoun  disclaimed  the  authorship  of  this  letter.  Mr.  Benton 
said  it  was  the  work  of  one  of  the  organs  of  the  administration,  not 
"  John  Jones,"  and  the  instruction  had  been  followed  by  three  hundred 
newspapers  in  the  pay  of  the  department  of  state. 

Mr.  Calhoun  defended  the  treaty  of  1819,  his  course  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  his  opinion  that  no  war  had  been 
necessary.  It  might  have  been  avoided,  even  after  the  battles  of  May, 
by  ordering  a  provisional  army  to  be  raised  for  the  protection  of  our 
territory.  By  this  means  we  could  have  secured  the  Rio  Grande,  and 
been  saved  the  expense  of  an  invading  war.  In  regard  to  annexation, 
he  said,  among  other  things,  that  it  had  been  his  determination  to 
carry  it  through,  and  he  had  succeeded.  It  was  one  of  the  proudest 
acts  of  his  life,  and  the  senator  from  Missouri  could  not  deprive  him  of 
the  merit  of  being  the  author  of  that  great  act.  If  the  government  had 
acted  afterwards  with  common  prudence,  Mexico  and  ourselves  would 
have  been  this  day  good  friends.  Mr.  C.  said  the  settlement  of  the 
Oregon  question  previous  to  the  commencement  of  hostilities  with  Mex- 
ico, was  one  of  the  most  unfortunate  events  for  this  country  that  had 
ever  occurred.  Had  it  not  been  settled  before  the  conflict  took  place, 
there  would  probably  have  been  no  settlement  of  it. 

Mr.  Clayton,  in  relation  to  the  commencement  of  the  war,  gave  the 
following  testimony  :  During  the  debate  on  the  Oregon  question,  in 
February,  1846,  he  had  learned  from  sources  upon  which  he  could  rely, 
that  our  government  had  ordered  Gen.  Taylor  to  break  up  his  encampment 
at  Corpus  Christi,  and  march  to  the  Rio  Grande.    The  instant  he  heard 


WAR    WITH    MEXICO.  845 

i-t — the  public  having  no  means  of  knowing  the  fact — he  was  alarmed  at 
the  apprehension  of  a  war  with  Mexico  ;  and  it  was  true,  as  Mr.  Cal- 
houn had  said,  that  he  had,  in  a  confidential  private  conversation,  in 
the  senate  chamber,  given  him  the  information,  and  had  told  him,  he 
believed,  that,  unless  he,  (Mr.  Calhoun,)  or  some  other  influential  gen- 
tleman should  interpose  to  arrest  the  tendency  of  things  arising  from 
that  order,  we  should  be  plunged  into  a  war.  At  the  same  time  there 
was  danger  of  a  war  with  England,  which  there  was  great  anxiety  to 
avert.  Mr.  Calhoun,  on  receiving  the  information,  exclaimed  :  "  It 
cannot  be  so  !  It  is  impossible  !"  just  as  the  senator  had  related  it  in 
this  debate ;  and  asked  what  could  be  done.  Mr.  Clayton  said  that  he, 
as  a  whig,  could  effect  nothing ;  and  unless  Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  friends, 
or  some  other  division  of  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  chamber, 
should  move  in  the  matter,  the  whigs  would  be  powerless.  "  The  hon- 
orable gentleman,"  said  Mr.  Clayton,  "  was  at  that  time,  as  he  has 
properly  stated,  devoted  to  the  same  great  object  which,  I  confess,  ab- 
sorbed my  own  mind  and  the  minds  of  those  around  me — the  prevention 
of  a  war  with  England ;  and  he  declined  to  move,  lest  his  usefulness 
on  that  great  question  should  be  in  any  degree  contracted.  In  the 
course  of  a  short  time  after  that — " 

Mr.  Calhoun :  ''  The  first  communication  was  in  January,  when 
you  announced  the  fact;  and  the  second  conversation  was  in  February." 

Mr.  Clayton  :  "  Yes,  the  senator  is  right.  Thus,  Mr.  President,  I 
felt  exonerated  from  all  responsibility  in  the  matter.  *  *  *  While 
the  houses  of  congress  remained  in  ignorance,  and  those  who  knew  could  not 
move,  the  president  of  the  United  States  was  ordering  the  army  upon  the 
Rio  Grande,  and  taking  a  step  of  which  the  inevitable  consequence  proved- 
to  be  war.  *  *  *  At  the  time  war  was  declared,  (announced,)  I 
denounced  it  as  the  act  of  the  president.  *  *  *  I  believe  that  the  war 
was  brought  on  by  this  thing  of  marching  the  army,  without  any  necessity, 
from  Corpus  Christi  to  the  Rio  Grande  ;  done — done,  too,  while  con- 
gress was  in  session,  without  one  word  being  communicated,  as  to  the 
intention  of  the  president,  to  either  house,  or  to  any  committee  or 
member  of  either  house  of  congress.  Under  these  circumstances,  Mr. 
President,  the  responsibility  of  the  war  will  probably  rest  on  him  who 
ought  to  bear  it." 

The  action  of  congress  upon  the  subject  of  the  Mexican  war,  gave  rise 
to  a  question  in  which  an  important  principle  was  involved.  Is  it  the 
duty  of  the  legislature  to  provide  the  means  of  prosecuting  a  war  made 
unconstitutionally,  or  by  the  exercise  of  usurped  power  ?  It  has  been 
seen,  that,  disconnected  from  the  declaration  that  war  existed  by  the  act 
of  Mexico,  bills  to  furnish  supplies  of  men  and  money  had  received  an 


846  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

almost  unanimous  vote.  The  whig  members,  generally,  while  protesting 
that  the  war  not  only  was  unjust,  but  had  been  made  by  the  executive 
without  constitutional  authority,  yet  voted  for  the  means  to  help  the 
executive  carry  his  purposes  into  effect ;  justifying  their  votes  on  the 
general  principle,  that,  in  what  manner,  or  for  what  purpose  soever,  a 
war  is  begun,  it  is  the  duty  of  congress  to  furnish  the  aid  to  prosecute 
it,  and  hold  its  projector  and  author  responsible. 

The  question  here  naturally  arises.  Can  the  legislature  while  it  fur- 
nishes the  aid,  avoid  the  responsibility  ?  The  legislative  and  executive 
branches  of  the  government  are  designed  to  hold  checks  upon  each  other. 
Can  either  then  be  justified  in  refusing  to  interpose  its  constitutional 
power  to  arrest  or  to  prevent  usurpation  by  the  other  ?  The  people 
who  have  to  bear  the  burdens  of  war,  have  very  properly  intrusted  the 
war  power  to  their  representatives.  Does  not  then  the  representative 
violate  his  trust  when  he  withholds  the  exercise  of  his  power  for  the 
purposes  for  which  it  was  conferred  ?  Let  the  doctrine  prevail  univer- 
sally, that,  if,  by  his  ingenuity,  an  executive  can  only  commence  a  war 
without  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the. representatives  of  the  people, 
it  is  their  duty  to  sustain  and  aid  him  in  the  measure,  and  what  would 
be  the  consequence  ?  Would  not  the  practical  effect  of  such  a  doctrine 
be  to  defeat  the  purpose  of  the  constitution,  and  convert  the  government 
into  a  military  despotism  ? 

Mr.  Corwin,  senator  from  Ohio,  who  stood  almost  alone  in  the  senate  on 
this  question,  vindicated  his  position  in  a  speech  of  acknowledged  ability. 
He  said :  "  While  the  American  president  can  command  the  army,  thank 
God  I  can  command  the  purse.  While  the  president,  under  the  penalty 
of  death,  can  command  your  officers  to  proceed,  I  can  tell  them  to  come 
back  for  supplies,  as  he  may.  He  shal^l  have  no  funds  from  me  in  the 
prosecution  of  such  a  war.  That  I  conceive  to  be  the  duty  of  a  senator. 
I  am  not  mistaken  in  that.  If  it  is  my  duty  to  grant  whatever  the  pre- 
sident demands,  for  what  am  I  here  ?  Have  I  no  will  upon  the  subject  ? 
Is  it  not  placed  at  my  discretion,  understanding,  and  judgment  ?  Have 
an  American  senate  and  house  of  representatives  nothing  to  do  but  to  obey 
the  bidding  of  the  president,  as  the  mercenary  army  he  commands  is 
compelled  to  obey  under  penalty  of  death  ?  No  !  your  senate  and  house 
of  representatives  were  never  elected  for  such  purpose  as  that.  They 
have  been  modeled  on  the  good  old  plan  of  English  liberty,  and  are 
intended  to  represent  the  English  house  of  commons,  who  curbed  the 
proud  power  of  the  king  in  olden  time,  by  withholding  supplies  if  they 
did  not  approve  the  war.  *  *  *  While  Charles  could  command  the 
army,  he  might  control  the  parliament ;  and  because  he  would  not  give 
up  that  command,  our  Puritan  ancestors  laid  his  head  upon  the  block. 
How  did  it  fare  with  others  ? 


WAR    WITH   MEXICO.  847 

"  It  was  on  this  very  proposition  of  controlling  the  executive  power 
of  England  by  withholding  the  money  supplies,  that  the  house  of  Orange 
came  in ;  and  by  their  accession  to  the  throne  commenced  a  new  epoch 
in  the  history  of  England,  distinguishing  it  from  the  old  reign  of  the 
Tudors  and  Plantagenets  and  those  who  preceded  it.  Then  it  was  that 
parliament  specified  the  purpose  of  appropriation;  and  since  1688,  it 
has  been  impossible  for  a  king  of  England  to  involve  the  people  of  Eng- 
land in  a  war,  which  your  president,  under  your  republican  institutions, 
and  with  your  republican  constitution,  has  yet  managed  to  do.  Here 
you  stand  powerless.  He  commands  this  army,  and  you  must  not  with- 
hold their  supplies.  He  involves  your  country  in  wasteful  and  exter- 
minating war  against  a  nation  with  whom  we  have  no  cause  of  complaint ; 
but  congress  may  say  nothing  !" 

In  a  letter  to  a  friend,  he  subsequently  wrote  :  "  I  differed  from  all 
the  leading  whigs  of  the  senate,  and  saw  plainly  that  they  all  were,  to 
some  extent,  bound  to  turn,  if  they  could,  the  current  of  public  opinion 
against  me.  They  all  agreed  with  me,  that  the  war  was  unjust  on  our 
part ;  that,  if  properly  begun,  (which  none  of  them  admitted,)  we  had 
already  suflSciently  chastised  Mexico,  and  that  the  further  prosecution 
of  it  was  wanton  waste  of  both  blood  and  treasure ;  yet  they  would  not 
undertake  to  stop  it.  They  said  the  president  alone  was  responsible.  I 
thought  we  who  aided  him,  or  furnished  him  means,  must  be  in  the 
judgment  of  reason  and  conscience,  equally  responsible,  equally  guilty, 
with  him." 

In  the  discussion  of  the  war  question,  a  theory  was  advanced  some- 
what different  from  that  of  the  great  body  of  either  of  the  political  par- 
ties in  congress.  Mr.  Rhett,  of  South  Carolina,  pronounced  the  doctrine, 
that  congress  has,  under  the  constitution,  the  war  maJdng  poiver^  a 
fallacy.  The  whigs,  assuming  this  doctrine,  inferred  that  the  president 
had  begun  the  war  with  Mexico,  and  had  begun  it  unconstitutionally ; 
and  that  congress  had  the  right  to  prescribe,  limit,  and  determine  the 
objects  and  purposes  of  the  war.  Mr.  R.  considered  the  principle,  with 
all  its  deductions,  false.  He  held  that  congress  had  the  power  to  declare 
and  begin  war  ;  but  the  hostilities  which  had  preceded  the  declaration  of 
war,  or  what  was  the  same  thing,  the  declaration  that  war  existed,  did  not 
constitute  war.  To  prove  this,  he  referred  to  the  frequent  collisions  on 
the  sea  between  our  vessels  and  those  of  England  and  France,  and  also 
to  the  Caroline  affair ;  neither  of  which  had  been  acts  of  war.  This  was 
evident  from  the  fact  that  France  had  long  plundered  our  commerce,  and 
many  bloody  battles  had  taken  place  on  the  sea,  and  many  ships  of  war 
had  been  captured,  yet  war  did  not  exist..  If  the  two  countries  had  been 
in  a  state  of  war,  we  could  have  had  no  lawful  claims  for  the  spoliation 


848  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  our  commerce.  These  claims  could  rest  only  on  the  ground  that  there 
•was  no  war  with  France. 

But  he  said  his  friends  on  the  other  side  turned  round,  and  pushed 
the  war  clause  of  the  constitution  far  beyond  its  meaning,  and  contended 
that  congress  had  not  only  the  war  declaring^  but  the  war  making 
power. 

Mr.  R.  then  argued,  that  there  was  a  difference  between  declaring  and 
making  war ;  the  one  putting  a  country  in  a  state  of  war ;  the  other 
conducting  it.  The  debates  in  the  convention  of  the  framers  of  the  con- 
stitution, he  said,  showed  that  to  make  war,  was  understood  to  be  to 
conduct  it.  The  word  "  make,"  which  had  been  inserted,  was  afterward 
struck  out,  and  "  declare"  inserted,  with  the  intention,  it  was  presumed, 
of  giving  to  congress  the  power  only  of  declaring  war,  and  leaving  the 
power  to  make  or  conduct  it  entirely  with  the  president.  But  congress 
had  omnipotent  power  over  the  supplies,  and  might  refuse  to  vote  a  dol- 
lar for  the  support  of  a  war.  Or,  it  might  vote  for  supplies,  witb  the 
condition,  that  they  be  used  onlv  to  withdraw  our  troops  from  Mexico 
to  this  side  of  the  Kio  Grande.  Although  the  president  was  intrusted 
with  the  war  making  power,  he  was  not  beyond  responsibility.  For  the 
abuse  of  his  power,  he  was  liable  to  impeachment.  Let  it  be  admitted 
that  the  war  making  power  was  in  congress.  Those  who  so  affirm  speak 
of  it  as  a  power  independent  of  the  president,  by  which  he  was  to  be  con- 
trolled. But  was  it  so  ?  He  had,  as  parties  stood,  an  absolute  veto 
power,  and  could  arrest  any  bill.  Hence,  that  congress  could  do  any- 
thing concerning  the  war,  was  a  delusion.  But  concede  to  congress  such 
power,  and  it  would  be  made  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy,  and  be  invested  with  the  treaty  making  power.  Mr.  R.  laid  down 
this  proposition  :  ''  Our  fathers  vested  the  war  making  power  in  the  pre- 
sident, the  war  continuing-  power  in  congress  (by  the  supplies)  and  the 
president,  and  the  war  ending  or  peace  making  power  in  the  president 
and  senate :  although,  by  its  power  over  the  supplies,  congress  might, 
incidentally,  also,  force  the  termination  of  the  war." 

Glen.  Scott,  in  the  progress  of  his  invasion,  reached  the  Mexican  capi- 
tal in  August,  1847,  where  he  concluded  an  armistice  with  Santa  Anna, 
with  a  view  to  a  negotiation  of  peace,  our  minister,  Nicholas  P.  Trist, 
having  the  requisite  power  for  that  purpose.  Failing  to  agree  upon  the 
terms  of  a  treaty,  and  the  two  generals  charging  each  other  with  a  viola- 
tion of  certain  articles  of  the  armistice,  hostilities  were  recommenced  early 
in  September,  and  were  continued  until  the  following  winter,  when  peace 
was  restored  between  the  two  countries.  A  treaty  was  concluded  in 
February,  1848. 

By  the  terms  of  this  treaty,  the  Rio  Grande  was  established  as  the 


THE    OREGON    QUESTION.  849 

boundary,  and  New  Mexico  and  Upper  California  were  ceded  to  the 
United  States ;  in  consideration  of  which,  the  United  States  were  to  pay- 
to  Mexico  fifteen  millions  of  dollars,  and  to  discharge  the  deferred  claims 
of  our  citizens  upon  Mexico. 


CHAPTER  LXYIII. 

THE    OREGON    QUESTION. 

Soon  after  the  close  of  the  session  of  congress  in  1844,  a  negotiation 
was  commenced  at  Washington,  between  the  secretary  of  state,  and  the 
British  minister,  (Pakenham,)  relative  to  the  rights  of  their  respective 
nations  in  Oregon.  The  administration  having  repeatedly  expressed  the 
determination  to  maintain  our  claim  to  the  whole  of  Oregon,  and  to 
have  "  the  whole  or  none,"  which  was  understood  to  mean,  that  the  full 
extent  of  our  claim  would  be  enforced,  if  necessary,  by  a  resort  to  arms, 
the  result  of  the  negotiation  was  awaited  with  much  anxiety.  More 
than  a  year  passed,  and  the  public  mind  was  still  uninformed  of  the 
state  of  the  negotiation.  It  was  rumored,  indeed,  that  our  government 
had  offered  to  the  British  minister  to  treat  on  the  parallel  of  the  49th 
degree  as  the  boundary.  The  "  Union,"  the  official  paper,  contradicted 
the  rumor,  October  6,  1845,  and  reasserted  the  purpose  of  the  adminis- 
tration to  insist  on  "  the  whole  of  Oregon,  or  none,"  as  "  the  only  alter- 
native." It  said:  "  When  that  word  goes  forth  from  the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  nation,  '  Our  right  to  Oregon  is  clear  and  unquestion- 
able,' who  doubts  that  it  will  go  the  whole  length  and  breadth  of  the 
land,  and  that  it  will  be  hailed  as  it  goes,  by  the  democratic  party,  with 
one  unanimous  amen  !  And  what  then  ?  We  answer  this,  then — the 
democracy  of  this  country  will  stand  to  its  word.      It  will  not  flinch." 

The  persistence  in  the  claim  to  the  whole  territory,  which,  it  was 
believed,  Grreat  Britain  would  not  relinquish,  excited,  in  many  minds, 
apprehensions  of  war.  Some  of  the  opposition  considered  it  as  the 
"trump  card  of  Mr.  Polk's  second  candidacy."  "Mr.  Polk  and  his 
advisers,"  it  was  said,  "  to  gain  western  votes  and  western  influence, 
were  perfectly  willing  to  involve  the  country  in  war."  It  was  predicted 
that  he  "  would  recommend,  in  his  next  message,  taking  possession  of 
all  Oregon ;  and  England  would  quietly  wait  the  action  of  congress. 
Should  the  recommendation  be  carried  out,  immediate  war  would  be 

54 


850  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

inevitable.  But  congress  would  commit  no  such  folly.  They  know 
now,  which  they  did  not  last  winter,  that  to  vote  for  such  a  measure  is  to 
vote  for  war^  and  not  a  party  vote  to  Buncombe? 

The  declaration  of  the  official  paper,  (The  Union,)  and  other  leading 
administration  journals,  in  favor  of  taking  possession  of  the  whole  ter- 
ritory, was  enforced  by  quoting  a  sentiment  ascribed  to  Gen.  Jackson  : 
'*  No  compromise  but  at  the  cannon's  mouth  !"  Although  public  senti- 
ment appeared  'to  be  generally  in  favor  of  the  justice  of  our  claim  to 
the  whole  territory,  a  large  portion  of  the  democratic  press,  as  well  as 
many  prominent  men  of  the  administration  party,  were  not  in  favor  of 
insisting  on  the  whole  territory,  at  the  hazard  of  war.  Taking  posses- 
sion of  the  territory,  and  exercising  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  it,  would 
have  been  a  direct  violation  of  the  treaty  which  required  the  year's 
notice  to  be  given  in  order  to  terminate  the  joint  occupancy ;  and  a 
law  to  carry  into  effect  the  proposed  measure  could  scarcely  have  failed 
to  provoke  a  war.  There  were  those  who  urged  the  giving  of  the 
notice  as  a  means  of  hastening  "a  settlement  of  the  controversy.  Others, 
among  whom  was  Mr.  Calhoun,  were  in  favor  of  a  compromise.  This 
had  been  proposed  by  Mr.  Benton,  in  1828,  who,  in  executive  session, 
introduced  resolutions,  declaring  it  '■'•  Tiot  expedient  to  treat  any  longer 
with  Great  Britain  upon  the  basis  of  a  joint  occupation  of  Oregon  ;" 
but  "  expedient  to  treat  upon  the  basis  of  a  separation  of  interests^  and 
the  establishment  of  the  forty-ninth  degree  of  north  latitude  as  a 
permanent  boundary." 

The  president's  message,  which  had  been  awaited  with  much  anxiety, 
did  not  meet  the  expectations  of  those  who  had  formed  their  opinions 
from  the  declarations  of  the  advocates  of  "  the  whole  or  none"  policy. 
Mr.  Polk  recapitulated  briefly  the  history  of  the  controversy.  He 
adverted  to  the  negotiations  of  1818,  1824,  and  1826;  the  two  first 
under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Monroe,  and  the  last  under  that  of  Mr. 
Adams;  that  of  1818  having  resulted  in  the  convention  providing  for 
the  joint  occupancy;  that  of  1824  having  been  productive  of  no  result; 
and  that  of  1826  having  resulted  in  the  convention  of  1827,  by  which 
the  joint  occupancy  was  continued  for  an  indefinite  period,  and  until 
the  convention  should  be  annulled ;  which  could  be  done  by  either  party 
after  the  expiration  of  the  ten  years  of  joint  occupation  from  October, 
1818,  by  giving  the  other  twelve  months'  previous  notice  to  that  effect. 

In  former  attempts  at  adjustment,  the  United  States  had  offered  the 
parallel  of  the  forty-ninth  degree,  with  the  free  navigation  of  the  Colum- 
bia river  south  of  that  degree.  Great  Britain  had  proposed  the  forty- 
ninth  degree  from  the  Rocky  mountains  to  its  intersection  with  the 
north-easternmost  branch  of  that  river,  and  thence  down  the  channel  of 


THE    OEEGON    QUESTION.  851 

the  same  to  the  sea,  with  a  small  detached  territory  north  of  the  Colum- 
bia. But  neither  party  had  accepted  the  proposition  of  the  other.  In 
October,  1843,  our  minister  in  London  was  authorized  to  repeat  the 
offers  of  1818  and  1826;  and  in  1844,  after  the  negotiation  had  been 
transferred  to  Washington  during  the  administr^ation  of  Mr.  Tyler,  the 
British  minister  proposed  the  same  line  as  that  before  offered  by  that 
government ;  the  navigation  to  be  free  to  both  parties ;  and  a  detached 
territory  north  of  the  river  being  also  again  offered,  with  the  privilege, 
in  addition,  of  the  free  use  of  all  the  ports  south  of  latitude  forty-nine. 
This  proposition  having  been  rejected  by  our  government,  no  other  was 
made  by  the  British  plenipotentiary. 

The  president  said,  that,  although  he  believed  the  British  pretensions 
to  any  portion  of  the  Oregon  territory  could  not  be  maintained  upon 
any  principle  of  public  law  recognized  by  nations,  ho  had  in  deference  to 
what  had  been  done  by  two  of  his  predecessors,  offered  to  divide  on  the 
forty-ninth  degree,  but  without  conceding  to  Great  Britain  the  free  navi- 
gation of  the  Columbia.  This  proposition  having  been  rejected,  it  had 
been  withdrawn,  and  our  title  to  the  whole  territory  asserted.  It  now 
became  the  duty  of  congress  to  consider  what  measure  to  adopt  for  the 
security  and  protection  of  our  citizens  in  that  country,  and  the  mainte- 
nance of  our  title;  taking  care  not  to  violate  the  treaty  of  1827,  which 
was  still  in  force.  He  recommended  that  the  notice  of  the  discontinu- 
ance of  the  joint  occupancy  should  be  given  ;  and  that  the  protection  of 
our  laws  should  be  extended  over  our  citizens  in  Oregon,  as  Great  Bri- 
tain had  extended  her  laws  and  jurisdiction  over  her  subjects  in  that 
territory. 

Negotiation  having  been  again  abandoned,  and  movements  being 
on  foot  in  England  which  were  regarded  as  preparations  for  war,  another 
conflict  with  that  power,  more  or  less  remote,  began  to  be  seriously 
apprehended.  The  president's  message  was  soon  followed  by  a  variety 
of  propositions  in  congress.  In  the  senate,  Mr.  Atchison  introduced 
resolutions  suggesting  the  organization  of  a  government  for  Oregon,  and 
the  arming  and  equipping  of  the  militia  of  that  territory.  Mr.  Cass 
offered  resolutions  proposing  preparations  for  war.  Mr.  Hannegan 
introduced  resolutions  asserting  our  title  to  all  Oregon,  and  declaring 
"  the  surrender  of  any  portion  of  it  an  abandonment  of  the  honor, 
character,  and  best  interests  of  the  American  people."  Mr.  Allen  pro- 
posed a  notice  to  terminate  the  joint  occupancy.  Mr.  Calhoun  offered 
a  series  of  resolutions  as  an  amendment  to  Hannegan's,  declaring  that, 
however  clear  our  title  might  be  to  the  whole  of  that  territory,  there  did 
exist,  and  had  long  existed,  conflicting  claims  on  the  part  of  Great  Bri- 
tain ;  and  that  the  president,  in  renewing  the  offer  to  compromise  on  the 


S5>Z  THE    AMEEICAN    STATESMAN. 

49tli  degree,  did  not  "  abandon  the  honor,  character,  and  best  mterests; 
of  the  American  people." 

Mr.  Calhoun  considered  Mr.  Hannegan's  resolutions  as  reflecting,  bj 
implication,  upon  th€  president  for  having  affered  to  compromise  on  tha 
line  of  the  forty-ninth  degree.  He  objected  to  the  resolutions,  that  if 
they  should  be  adopted,  the  question  could  only  be  settled  by  force  of 
arms.  He  was  in  favor  of  a  pacific  course — of  an  adjustment,  if  pos- 
sible, by  negotiation. 

Mr.  Hannegan  said  he  had  no  intention  of  casting  a  censure  upon  the 
president.  The  aspect  of  things  had  changed  since  the  proposition  had 
Deen  made  to  divide  at  the  49th  parallel.  He,  too,  was  for  peace ;  but 
when  peace  became  degrading  and  dishonorable,  a  war  even  of  extermi- 
nation would  be  preferable.  And  for  one,  representing  the  people  he 
did,  he  never  would  vote  for  any  treaty  yielding  an  inch  of  ground  below 
54  degrees  and  40  minutes  north. 

In  the  house,  Mr.  Winthrop  offered  resolutions,  declaring  it  a  dishonor 
to  the  age,  and  discreditable  to  both  nations,  to  be  drawn  into  war,  and 
that  it  was  due  to  the  principles  of  civilization  and  Christianity,  that  a 
resort  be  had  to  arbitration.  Mr.  Douglas  proposed  to  resolve,  that  the 
subject  was  not  open  to  compromise,  so  as  to  surrender  any  part  of  the 
territory;  and  that  the  question  of  title  should  not  be  left  to  arbitration. 

About  this  time  there  appeared  a  singular  state  of  parties  in  congress. 
Mr.  Calhoun  occupied  the  same  position  as  in  1843,  when  he  was  in 
favor  of  a  "  masterly  inactivity ;"  that  is,  he  was  for  leaving  the  terri- 
tory quietly  to  fall  into  the  arms  of  the  union,  as  it  naturally  would,  at 
no  very  distant  day.  Mr.  Cass's  resolutions  were  forthwith  unani- 
mously adopted  by  the  senate.  This  was  regarded  as  an  indirect  appro- 
val of  the  views  of  the  president ;  and  yet,  upon  authority  deemed  reli- 
able, it  was  believed  that  the  administration  desired  that  the  question 
should  be  settled  by  negotiation.  Both  Hannegan's  and  Calhoun's 
resolutions  were  considered  ill-advised;  virtually  taking  the  question 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  administration,  who,  it  was  said,  had  managed 
it  satisfactorily  to  the  people.  The  adoption  of  Mr.  Hannegan's  reso- 
lutions would,  it  was  apprehended,  have  the  effect  of  precluding  all 
future  efforts  at  negotiation.  Mr.  Calhoun's  resolutions  were  deemed 
objectionable,  as  they  would  "  create  an  impression  that  a  portion  of  the 
democratic  party  were  about  to  give  the  whigs  the  coveted  opportunity 
to  defeat  the  honorable  and  peaceable  settlement  of  the  controversy  by 
the  present  administration." 

A  very  unexpected  course  was  taken  by  a  portion  of  the  whigs.  In 
the  house,  on  the  2d  of  January,  1846,  Mr.  Cunningham,  of  Ohio,  a 
democrat,  asked  leave  to  introduce  a  resolution,  which,  after  stating  in  a 


THE    OREGON    QUESTION.  853 

|)reamble,  that  the  rejection,  by  Great  Britian,  of  the  liberal  proposition 
of  the  president  had  terminated  all  negotiations  on  the  Oregon  question  !. 
that  her  extraordinary  demands  had  made  it  manifest  that  no  satisfac- 
tory compromise  could  be  effected;  that  our  title  to  all  the  country 
between  the  parallels  of  42  degrees,  and  54  degrees  and  40  minutes  north 
latitude,  and  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  was  clear  and  unquestion- 
able; and  that  no  portion  of  it  <;ould  be  honorably  surrendered, 
declared  it  to  be  "  the  imperative  duty  of  congress  to  adopt  imme- 
diately such  measures  as  would  fully  protect  our  citizens  who  now  do, 
or  may  hereafter  inhabit  that  country,  and  effectually  maintain  our  just 
title  to  the  whole  of  the  country  of  the  Oregon," 

Objection  having  been  made  to  the  introduction  of  the  resolution,  the 
question  was  taken  on  a  motion  to  suspend  the  rules  for  the  purpose  of 
the  immediate  reception  of  the  resolution,  when,  the  first  name  called 
being  that  of  Mr.  Adams,  a  sensation  was  produced  in  the  house  by  his 
Yoting  a^e.  Other  whigs  also  voted  in  the  affirmative.  The  motion  to 
suspend,  however,  was  lost. 

Mr.  Douglas  had  previously  reported  a  bill  for  extending  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  over  the  territory  of  Oregon;  and  for  the  protection 
of  its  inhabitants;  which  having  been  made  the  special  order  for  a  future 
day,  Mr.  Haralson,  from  the  committee  on  military  affairs,  reported  a 
bill  for  the  organization  of  two  regiments  of  riflemen,  and  moved  that  it 
be  made  a  special  order,  assigning  as  a  reason,  that  it  had  immediate 
connection  with  the  object  of  the  Oregon  territorial  bill  of  Mr.  Doug- 
las. Upon  this  motion  a  debate  arose,  in  which  Mr.  Adams  took  a 
prominent  part,  and  excited  much  surprise  and  a  deep  sensation. 

Mr.  Adams  was  against  the  bill  as  unnecessary,  both  because  a  simi- 
lar bill  for  one  regiment  was  in  progress  in  the  senate,  and  because  he 
saw  ''  no  danger  of  war  at  this  time."  If  any  danger  of  war  was  appre- 
hended, the  first  measure  to  be  taken  ought  to  be  to  give  notice  to  Great 
Britain  that  we  meant  to  terminate  the  joint  occupancy.  Yet  it  was 
not  a  joint  occupancy  ;  and  he  had  been  surprised  at  the  language  of 
some  gentlemen  on  the  subject.  The  treaty  acknowledged  no  occupa- 
tion of  the  territory  by  either  party ;  it  was  a  mere  commercial  conven- 
tion for  free  navigation,  but  did  not  admit  the  occupation,  by  either 
party,  of  an  inch  of  territory  by  the  other.  Twelve  months  after  such 
notice  should  have  been  given,  the  right  would  accrue  to  us  to  occupy 
any  part  of  the  territory.  To  the  bill  which  had  passed  at  the  last 
session,  he  had  moved  a  section,  requiring  such  notice  to  be  given;  but 
the  bill  had  been  lost  in  the  senate.  He  had  then  declared,  and  he  now 
declared  himself  ready  to  give  such  notice.  He  hoped  it  would  be  given, 
and  followed  by  a  real  occupation  of  the  whole  territory.     [This  declara- 


854  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

tion  caused  great  sensation,  and  some  demonstrations  of  applause,  which 
was  promptly  arrested  by  the  speaker.]  Mr.  Douglas  having  said  there 
appeared  to  be  a  game  playing  there,  Mr.  Adams  said  that  remark  was 
incomprehensible  to  him ;  but  he  confessed  he  was  surprised  to  hear 
that  the  committee  on  foreign  affairs  would  not  report  such  notice  to 
the  house. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  said  he  knew  of  no  member  of  the  committee  who  had 
said  so.  Mr.  Douglas  said  he  had  said  so,  because  he  had  heard  that 
such  was  their  determination. 

Mr.  Adams  said,  while  they  were  talking  about  regiments  of  riflemen, 
stockade  forts,  &c.,  Great  Britain  was  arming  her  steam-vessels,  equip- 
ping her  frigates  and  liue-of-battle  ships,  and  sending  over  her  troops  to 
be  ready.  Said  he  :  ^^  I  would  press  a  resolution  giving  the  notice  this 
PAY,  if  I  hoped  that  a  majority  of  the  house  could  be  obtained  to  effect 
that  measure."  He  said,  while  the  convention  remained  in  force,  he 
would  vote  for  no  increase  of  the  army  or  navy.  He  hoped,  if  the  bill 
should  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Tuesday,  that  it  would  be 
arranged  by  gentlemen  who  managed  the  b(usiness  of  the  house,  that  the 
question  of  giving  notice  should  come  up  on  the  same  day,  and  be  first 
taken  up.  It  was  mere  wasting  time,  and  whistling  to  the  wind,  to  talk 
about  military  force,  until  our  conscience  was  clear  from  the  obligation 
of  the  convention.  And  he  said  it  did  not  follow  that,  if  notice  was 
given,  there  must  be  war,  nor  even  that  we  should  then  take  possession. 
It  would  only  be  saying  to  Great  Britain :  After  n^otiating  twenty 
years  about  this  matter,  we  do  not  choose  to  negotiate  any  longer.  We 
shall  take  possession  of  what  is  our  own,  and  then,  if  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion of  what  is  our  own,  you  wish  to  negotiate,  we  will  negotiate  as  long 
as  you  please.  We  may  negotiate  after  we  take  possession.  (Much 
laughter.)  This  is  the  military  way  of  doing  business.  (Increased 
merriment.) 

The  contrast  between  the  indifference  of  the  Calhoun  party  in  con- 
gress on  the  Oregon  question,  and  their  zeal  the  year  before  for  the  ac- 
quisition of  Texas,  even  at  the  cost  of  war,  did  not  escape  the  notice  of 
Mr.  Adams.  He  repeated  that  the  notice  did  not  necessarily  draw'after 
it  a  war ;  and  if  Great  Britain  chose  to  take  it  as  an  act  of  hostility  on 
our  part,  and  commence  a  war,  he  hoped  there  might  be  but  one  party. 
The  war  would  then  have  less  of  those  extraordinary  terrors  which  his 
friend  from  South  Carolina,  (Mr.  Holmes,)  had  just  now  discovered, 
notwithstanding  the  extreme  military  propensities  which  he  manifested 
on  that  floor  last  year.  The  gentleman  was  a  most  valiant  man  when 
Texas  was  in  question.  "  But,"  said  Mr.  A.,  "  I  shall  draw  no  com- 
parisons as  to  what  we  witnessed  then,  and  what  we  see  now ;  but  this  I 


THE    OREGON    QUESTION.  855 

will  say,  that  I  hope  if  war  shall  come — which  God  forbid,  and  of 
which  I  entertain  no  fears  at  all — the  whole  country  will  have  but  one 
heart,  and  but  one  united  hand.  And  of  this  I  am  very  sure,  that,  in 
that  case,  Great  Britain  will  no  longer  occupy  Oregon,  nor  any  thing 
else  north  of  Canada  line.  [Great  sensation,  and  incipient  indica- 
tions of  applause.]  But  if  you  will  agree  to  give  notice,  strong  as  is 
my  horror  of  war  and  of  all  military  establishments,  if  there  should 
then  be  the  breath  of  life  in  me,  I  hope  I  shall  be  willing  to  go  as  far 
as  any  in  making  any  sacrifice  to  render  that  war  successful  and 
glorious." 

Mr.  IngersoU,  the  next  day,  (January  3,)  made  some  explanation  in 
regard  to  the  giving  notice.  It  had  been  proposed  at  the  last  session  ; 
and  the  resolution  had  been  referred  to  the  committee  on  foreign  af- 
fairs, who  had  reported  against  the  proposition ;  but  it  should  be  borne 
in  mind  that  the  then  president  was  against  it,  while  the  present  in- 
cumbent had  expressed  a  desire  that  the  notice  should  be  given.  Mr. 
I.  followed  in  the  wake  of  Mr.  Adams.  He  concurred  in  the  remark 
made  by  the  latter,  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  a  joint  occupation 
by  the  treaty.  The  term  "  joint  occupation"  was  not  to  be  found  in  the 
convention  of  1818  at  all.  It  had,  in  1828,  in  a  protocol  of  Mr.  Gallatin 
with  the  British  minister,  stolen  into  the  negotiation.  The  admission 
of  these  words  was  a  monstrous  concession  on  our  part  to  the  claims  of 
the  British  government. 

Mr.  Preston  King,  of  New  York,  said  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
on  territories  had  informed  the  house,  that  a  game  had  been  playing 
there ;  and  Mr.  K.  read  from  the  London  Times  an  article  predicting 
threatening  language  from  the  president,  the  reappearance  of  Mr.  Cal- 
houn in  the  senate,  a  check  to  be  then  given  in  that  body  to  the  war 
spirit,  and  the  administration  thus  saved  from  the  consequences  of  its 
own  violence. 

Mr.  Douglas  explained.  By  the  "  game  playing  in  the  house,"  he 
had  not  h<id  reference  to  any  thing  in  an  English  paper ;  but  to  the 
disposition  manifested  to  prevent  a  speedy  action  on  the  Oregon  bill, 
by  getting  up  feelings  of  jealousy  between  the  standing  committees  as 
to  their  respective  jurisdictions,  in  order  to  procrastinate  action. 

Mr.  King  resumed.  The  administration  had  erred  in  offering  to 
settle  by  the  49th  parallel.  It  had  been  said  that  the  administration 
must  have  felt  sure  that  the  offer  would  have  been  rejected,  or  it  would 
not  have  been  made.  The  subject  had  been  in  the  charge  of  diplomacy 
long  enough;  and  he  now  rejoiced  to  learn  from  the  message  that  ne- 
gotiation was  at  an  end. 

Mr.  Winthrop  dissented  from  the  views  of  those  who  had  preceded  him. 


856  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

The  gentlemen  from  Massachusetts  and  Pennsylvania  had  said  that 
they  had,  at  a  former  session,  voted  for  giving  the  notice  for  termi- 
nating the  convention.  He,  on  the  other  hard,  had  voied  against  it, 
and  would  again.  He  had  offered,  a  few  days  ago,  a  series  of  resolu- 
tions, which  might  not  soon  emerge  from  the  pile  of  matter  under  which 
they  were  buried  on  the  table.  Stormy  debates  upon  peace  and  war 
had  an  injurious  influence;  and  his  purpose  in  introducing  his  resolu- 
tions was  to  express  some  plain  and  precise  opinions  entertained  by 
himself  and  many  others  in  regard  to  the  present  critical  state  of  our 
foreign  relations.  All  agreed  that  we  had  rights  in  Oregon ;  and  that, 
if  these  rights  were  to  be  maintained  by  war,  it  must  be  done  with  all 
the  vigor  we  possessed.  He  spurned  the  notion  that  patriotism  could 
only  be  manifested  by  plunging  the  nation  into  war,  or  that  the  love  of 
one's  country  could  only  be  measured  by  his  hatred  to  any  other 
country. 

Mr.  W.  did  not  expect  to  escape  reproach  from  his  opponents  for  the 
expression  of  his  opinions ;  and  there  were  those  of  his  own  party  from 
whom  he  might  expect  them.  It  had  been  said  that  it  was  not  good 
party  policy  to  avow  such  doctrines;  that  it  gave  the  friends  of  the 
administration  occasion  to  brand  the  whigs  as  a  peace  party  ;  and  that 
the  only  course  for  the  minority  to  pursue,  was  to  bring  about  their 
readiness  for  war  with  those  that  bragged  loudest.  Now,  if  an  oppo- 
nent of  the  administration  were  willing  to  make  a  mere  party  instru- 
ment of  this  Oregon  negotiation,  he  might  retort  upon  the  majority 
by  asking.  Where  was  the  heroic  determination  of  the  executive  to  vin- 
dicate our  title  to  "  the  wJwle  of  Oregon — the  whole  or  none" — when  a 
deliberate  offer  of  more  than  five  degrees  of  latitude  had  recently  been 
made  to  Great  Britain  ?  and  that,  too,  when  the  president  and  secretary 
of  state  told  us  that  our  right  to  the  whole  was  clear  and  unquestion- 
able !  For  himself,  he  repudiated  all  idea  of  party  obligations  or  party 
views  in  connection  with  this  question.  He  scorned  the  suggestion  that 
the  peace  of  his  country  was  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  pawn  on  the 
political  chess-board,  to  be  periled  for  mere  party  triumph.  There  had 
been  enough  of  the  mischief  of  mingling  such  questions  with  party  poli- 
tics. It  had  been  openly  avowed  elsewhere,  and  repeated  in  this  house 
yesterday  by  the  member  from  Illinois,  (Mr.  Douglas,)  that  Oregon 
and  Texas  had  been  born  and  cradled  together  in  the  Baltimore  con 
vention ;  that  they  were  the  twin  offspring  of  that  political  conclave ; 
and  in  that  avowal  might  be  found  the  whole  explanation  of  the  difficul- 
ties and  dangers  with  which  the  question  was  now  attended. 

Mr.  W.  said  he   honored   the  administration  for  whatever  spirit  of 
conciliation,  compromise  and  peace  they  had  manifested.     If  for  any 


THE    OREGON    QUESTION,  857 

thing  he  would  reproach  or  taunt  them,  it  was  for  their  abandonment 
of  that  spirit.  If  any  one  desired  to  brand  him,  on  this  account,  as  a 
member  of  a  peace  party,  he  bared  his  bosom  to  receive  the  brand,  and 
was  willing  to  take  its  first  and  deepest  impression,  while  the  iron  was 
sharpest  and  hottest.  If  there  was  any  shame  in  such  a  brand,  he  glo- 
ried in  his  shame.  But  who  was  willing  to  bear  the  brand  of  being  a 
member  of  the  war  party?  Who  would  submit  to  have  that  Cain-mark 
stamped  upon  his  brow  ?  He  thanked  Heaven  that  all  men,  on  all 
sides,  had  thus  far  refused  to  wear  it.  All  had  avowed  themselves  in 
favor  of  peace;  "  only  it  must  be  an  honorable  peace."  This  was  the 
stereotyped  phrase  of  the  day.  The  question  was,  what  was  an  honor- 
able peace  ?  Peace  was  in  its  nature  honorable ;  war,  in  its  proper 
character,  was  disgraceful.  Was  there  any  thing  in  the  Oregon  con- 
troversy, as  it  then  stood,  which  furnished  an  exception  to  these  general 
principles  ?  any  thing  which  would  render  a  pacific  policy  discreditable, 
or  which  would  invest  war  with  any  degree  of  true  honor  ?  He  denied 
it  altogether. 

Mr.  W.  then  proceeded  to  the  defense  of  the  propositions  of  his  reso- 
lutions. In  the  course  of  his  speech,  he  commented  severely  on  a 
remark  by  Mr.  King,  that  the  administration,  in  making  the  ofi"er  of  the 
49th  parallel,  did  it  with  the  understanding  that  it  would  be  rejected. 
[Mr.  K.  said  he  heard  it,  and  believed  it  to  be  so.]  Said  Mr.  Winthrop: 
"  There  is  an  admission  to  which  I  wish  to  call  the  solemn  attention  of 
the  house  and  of  the  country.  I  trust  in  Heaven  that  the  honorable 
member  is  mistaken.  I  trust,  for  the  honor  of  the  country,  that  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  on  foreign  affairs  will  obtain  official  authority 
to  contradict  this  statement."  [Mr.  Ingersoll  said  he  would  not  wait  for 
authority.  He  denied  it  unqualifiedly.  Mr.  King  said  his  authority 
was  public  rumor,  and  he  believed  it  to  be  correct.]  Mr.  Winthrop  : 
"  It  can  not  be  correct.  What  sort  of  an  administration  are  you  Sup- 
porting if  you  can  believe  them  to  have  been  guilty  of  such  gross  dupli- 
city in  the  face  of  the  world,  in  order  to  furnish  themselves  with  a  pre- 
text for  war  ?  I  would  not  have  heard  their  enemy  suggest  such  an 
idea." 

Mr.  W.  intimated  that  there  was  yet  hope  of  being  able  to  settle  the 
question  by  negotiation.  But  if  no  compromise  which  the  United  States 
ought  to  accept  can  be  effected,  was  there  then  no  resort  but  war  ? 
Yes ;  there  was  still  another  easy  and  obvious  mode  of  averting  that 
fearful  alternative.  He  meant  arbitration  ;  a  resort  so  reasonable,  so 
just,  so  conformable  to  the  principle  which  governed  us  in  our  daily 
domestic  affairs,  so  conformable  to  the  spirit  of  civilization  and  Chris- 
tianity, that  no  man  would  venture  to  say  any  thing  against  it  in  the 


858  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

abstract.  But  it  was  said  we  could  find  no  impartial  arbiter.  So  then, 
"  our  title,"  said  Mr.  W.,  "  is  so  clear  and  indisputable,  that  we  can  find 
nobody  in  the  wide  world  impartial  enough  to  give  it  a  fair  considera- 
tion !"  He  said  he  would  vote  for  any  measures  necessary  for  the 
defense  of  the  country.  But  he  insisted  that  the  peace  of  the  country 
and  the  honor  of  the  country  were  still  compatible  with  each  other. 
There  had  been  omens  of  peace  in  the  other  end  of  the  capitol,  if  none 
in  this.  But  if  war  should  come,  the  administration  must  take  the 
responsibility,  for  all  its  guilt  and  all  its  disgrace. 

The  debate,  in  which  several  other  gentlemen  participated,  took  place 
on  Saturday,  January  3,  1846.  On  Monday,  the  5th,  Mr.  IngersoU, 
from  the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  reported  a  joint  resolution, 
requiring  the  president  forthwith  to  cause  notice  to  be  given  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  Great  Britain,  that  the  convention  of  1827  should  he  annul- 
led and  abrogated  in  twelve  inonths. 

Mr.  Garret  Davis,  of  Kentucky,  in  behalf  of  the  minority  of  the  com- 
mitte,  made  a  report,  in  which  the  question  was  raised,  whether  the 
house,  which  is,  by  the  constitution,  invested  with  no  executive  functions, 
could  be  properly  united  with  the  president  and  senate,  in  giving  this 
notice.  If  the  notice  could  be  given  without  the  concurrence  of  the 
house,  would  not  such  an  interference  be  beyond  the  scope  of  its  powers  ? 
The  house  had  had  no  agency  in  the  formation  of  this  convention  with 
England  :  it  was  a  treaty  made  properly,  and  that  could  only  be  made 
by  the  president  and  the  senate.  The  treaty  making  power  might  at 
any  time,  with  the  consent  of  Great  Britain,  modify  it,  as  had  once  been 
done ;  and  the  same  power  could  put  an  end  to  it.  Without  expressing 
an  opinion  whether  the  notice  ought  or  ought  not  to  be  given,  and  as  the 
solution  of  that  question  was  constitutionally  for  the  president,  or  for 
him  acting  with  the  senate,  the  house  ought  to  be  content  to  leave  him 
to  his  proper  judgment,  discretion,  and  responsibility ;  and  they  conclude 
with  .a  resolution  to  that  effect. 

On  the  motion  of  Mr.  IngersoU  to  make  his  resolution  the  special 
order  for  the  first  Monday  of  February, 

Mr.  Giddings,  of  Ohio,  who  was  regarded  as  the  leader  of  the  aboli- 
tion party  in  the  house,  quite  as  unexpectedly  as  Mr.  Adams  had  done, 
declared  himself  in  favor  of  terminating  the  convention.  He  had,  in  a 
former  congress,  been  opposed  to  the  proposition ;  but  the  aspect  of 
things  had  changed.  The  slave  power  of  the  union  had  gained  largely 
by  the  annexation  of  Texas.  The  compromises  of  the  constitution  had 
been  virtually  done  away ;  and  the  principle  of  territorial  extension  had 
been  grafted  on  the  government,  and,  by  consequence,  forced  upon  the 
northern  states,  in  self-defense.     He  differed  in  opinion  from  the  repre- 


THE    OREGON   QUESTION.  859 

sentatives  from  Massachusetts.  He  believed  if  we  took  the  whole  of 
Oregon,  we  should  have  war.  He  preferred  war,  with  all  its  miseries, 
to  enduring  the  supremacy  of  the  slavocratic  oligarchy.  Texas  had  been 
admitted,  and  its  weight  must  be  counterbalanced.  But  the  northern 
democracy  would  now  find  their  southern  democratic  brethren  deserting 
them.  Their  southern  friends  in  every  part  of  this  hall,  were  imploring 
whigs  and  democrats  to  save  them  from  this  dread  policy,  which  strikes 
a  death  blow  to  the  value  of  slave  property.  A  master  spirit  of  the 
south  (Calhoun)  had  left  his  retirement,  and  taken  his  position  in  the 
other  end  of  the  capitol,  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  defeating  the  very 
policy  (territorial  extension)  which  occupied  his  whole  intellect  and 
desires  only  a  year  ago.  Mr.  Gr.  assured  northern  democrats  that  if  the 
measure  (giving  notice)  should  be  carried  out  by  congress,  Mr.  Polk 
would  save  the  south  from  their  apprehensions  of  war ;  he  would  sur- 
render all  of  Oregon  north  of  the  49th  degree,  rather  than  hazard  the 
dangers  of  a  war ;  and  thus  the  north  would  be  betrayed. 

Mr.  M'Dowell,  of  Ohio,  hoped  not  a  man  who  had  advocated  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  would  now  falter  in  the  settlement  of  the  Oregon 
controversy.  Both  measures  had  been  avowed  by  the  Baltimore  conven- 
tion, and  had  equal  claims  to  support.  The  negotiation  M^as  now  at  an 
end ;  and  he  trusted  that  not  a  representative  from  the  Mississippi 
valley  ever  would  consent  that  the  offer  of  the  49th  degree  should  be 
accepted  and  ratified  by  the  government.  In  the  presence  of  the  house, 
and  of  the  nation,  and  before  God,  the  king  of  nations,  he  solemnly  pro- 
tested against  any  more  offers  to  buy  a  peace.  Negotiation  !  He  would 
rather  cover  the  soil  of  Oregon  with  the  corpses  of  our  countrymen,  and 
wet  it  with  their  life-blood,  than  surrender  an  inch  of  it  to  Great  Britain, 
and  thereby  seal  the  national  disgrace. 

Mr.  Bhett,  of  South  Carolina,  was  opposed  to  giving  notice.  To 
carry  into  effect  our  laws  over  the  whole  territory  after  notice  given,  it 
would  be  necessary  forcibly  to  eject  the  British  from  some  thirty  forts ; 
and  war  "v^ould  probably  result.  The  giving  of  the  notice  would  throw 
upon  us  the  onus  of  action,  and  the  necessity  of  maintaining  our  rights  by 
force.  He  did  not  believe  Oregon  would  be  gained  by  war ;  it  would 
rather  be  the  means  of  our  losing  it.  The  prolongation  of  the  conven- 
tion would  do  us  no  injury.  We  should  gain  by  time.  To  put  an  end 
to  it,  would  bring  us  into  collision  with  the  Hudson  Bay  company  and 
Great  Britain.  He  was  not  afraid  of  a  war  with  that  power  ;  but  he  was 
opposed  to  any  war  which  bore  a  semblance  of  a  war  of  conquest.  He 
did  not  think  the  proposed  action  was  demanded  by  national  honor.  It 
was  not  honor  to  take  fire  at  negotiation,  and  jeopard  the  national  peace 
prosperity,  and  happiness  for  shadows. 


860  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Besides  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Giddings,  several  whigs  took  an  equally 
decided  stand  in  favor  of  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  for  terminating 
the  convention  of  1827.  As  evidence  of  the  great  weight  attached  to 
thd  judgment  aiid  opinions  of  Mv.  Adams,  it  was  stated  that,  imme- 
diately after  the  publication  of  his  speech,  "  the  apprehensions  of  a  war 
were  renewed ;  stocks  fell  instantly ;  markets  were  agitated ;  and  the 
week  closed  under  gloomy  forebodings.  The  assurances  of  the  venerable 
gentleman,  that  he  apprehended  no  war,  seemed  to  weigh  very  little 
when  placed  in  the  scale  to  balance  the  tenor  of  the  course  he  chalked 
out  for  the  country."  It  was  believed  also  that  his  speech  was  instru- 
mental in  hastening  the  report  of  the  committee  on  foreign  relations. 

The  message  of  the  president,  and  the  language  of  the  official  paper, 
produced  no  small  excitement  in  England.  The  British  press  spoke  out 
with  spirit  for  maintaining  their  claims  and  the  honor  of  the  nation. 
The  mollification,  by  the  Union,  of  its  "whole  or  none,"  "  war  or  no  war" 
article,  the  general  tone  of  the  American  press,  and  a  speech  of  Daniel 
Webster  at  Boston,  denouncing  the  idea  of  a  war  with  England,  served 
essentially  to  abate  the  excitement  abroad. 

In  this  country,  apprehensions  were  considerably  allayed  by  the  post- 
ponement, in  the  senate,  on  the  12th  of  January,  of  the  consideration  of 
the  "notice"  resolutions,  by  a  vote  of  32  to  18,  until  the  10th  of  Feb- 
ruary. Also  resolutions  by  Mr.  Allen  against  the  non-interference  of 
European  powers  with  the  political  afi'airs  of  the  independent  nations  of 
America ;  or  against  establishing  new  colonies  upon  this  continent,  were 
laid  upon  the  table,  28  to  23 ;  the  Calhoun  senators  voting  with  the 
whigs. 

On  the  14th  of  January,  Mr.  Crittenden,  of  the  senate,  ofi"ered  resolu- 
tions for  giving  the  notice,  but  with  a  provision  allowing  an  opportunity 
for  an  amicable  settlement ;  and  the  notice  not  to  be  given  until  after 
the  close  of  the  present  session  of  congress.  The  resolutions  were  made 
the  order  of  the  day  for  the  10th  of  February. 

The  house  also  manifested  a  disposition  to  deliberate  upon  the  subject 
rather  leisurely.  Numerous  resolutions  were  successively  offered,  and 
the  debate  was  continued  until  the  9th  of  February,  when  it  was  closed 
by  the  adoption  of  resolutions  offered  by  Mr.  Boyd,  of  Kentucky, 
requiring  the  president  to  give  the  twelve  months'  notice,  and  permitting 
the  parties  to  renew  or  pursue  negotiations  for  an  amicable  settlement 
of  the  controversy.  The  vote  on  the  resolutions  was,  ayes  163  ;  noes, 
54.  Of  the  74  whig  votes,  37  were  for,  and  37  against  the  notice.  Of 
the  democrats,  121  voted  for,  and  16  against.  Of  the  native  Ameri- 
cans, 5  voted  for,  and  1  against  the  notice. 

Apprehensions  of  war  were  now  suddenly  revived,  by  the  publica 


THE   OREGON   QUESTION.  861 

tion  of  the  correspondence  between  the  two  governments  relating  to  the 
Oregon  question,  from  which  it  appeared,  that  two  different  propositions 
had  been  made,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  for  arbitration,  both  of 
which  had  been  rejected.  The  objection  to  the  first  was,  that  it  referred 
to  a  friendly  power  or  state  merely  the  partition  or  equitable  division  of 
the  territory  between  the  parties ;  thus  assuming  that  the  title  of  Great 
Britain  to  a  portion  was  valid.  The  second  proposition  referred  the 
question  of  the  title  of  either  power  to  the  whole  territory,  subject  to 
the  condition,  that,  if  the  arbitrator  should  not  deem  the  title  to  the 
whole  by  either  party  complete,  there  should  be  assigned  to  each  a  por- 
tion corresponding  to  the  claim  of  each.  This  was  rejected  on  the 
ground  that  the  condition  might  be  construed  into  an  intimation,  if  not 
a  direct  invitation,  to  the  arbitrator  to  divide  the  territory  between  the 
parties. 

On  the  10th  of  February,  the  debate  commenced  on  the  several  reso- 
lutions which  had  been  made  the  order  of  the  day.  This  debate,  in 
which  the  most  able  and  distinguished  senators  participated,  continued 
more  than  two  months.  The  16th  of  April  had  been  fixed  on  for  taking 
the  question.  As  the  question  of  peace  or  war  was  considered  as 
depending,  in  a  great  measure,  on  the  adoption  or  rejection  of  a  resolu- 
tion for  giving  notice  of  a  termination  of  the  convention  of  1827,  a  deep 
and  pervading  interest  was  felt  in  the  final  action  of  the  senate.  The 
gallery  and  the  avenues  to  it,  were  pre-occupied  by  a  dense  crowd  for 
hours  before  the  meeting  of  the  senate. 

The  great  point  of  difi'erence  between  the  particular  friends  of  the 
administration  and  its  opponents  on  the  subject  of  giving  notice,  was, 
that  the  former  wished  congress  to  back  up  the  president  with  an  unquali- 
fied resolution  requiring  the  notice  to  be  given ;  whereas  the  latter 
wished  the  matter  still  left  open  for  amicable  adjustment,  and  the  respon- 
sibility thrown  upon  the  president  of  choosing  or  refusing  to  negotiate ; 
in  other  words,  of  determining  the  question  of  "  peace  or  war." 

Before  taking  the  question,  Mr.  Crittenden  addressed  the  senate  for 
about  two  hours,  in  favor  of  resolutions  in  the  qualified  form,  as  most 
likely  to  preserve  peace.  He  was  for  leaving  with  the  president  the 
responsibility  as  well  as  the  power  which  the  constitution  reposes  in  the 
executive  for  the  management  of  negotiation.  He  believed  the  question 
would  be  settled  amicably.  The  president  desired  the  notice  to  aid  him. 
It  had  been  asked  for  as  a  means  of  peace,  and  he  (Mr.  C.)  regarded  it 
as  such.  It  would  be  a  disgrace  to  the  age  if  the  question  should  not 
be  amicably  settled.  Before  God  and  man,  they  would  be  responsible 
who  acted  upon  the  negotiation.  Let  the  president,  who  had  the  power 
in  his  hands,  look  to  the  matter.     His  would  be  the  responsibility.     Let 


862  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

him  act  as  a  president  of  the  United  States — as  a  just  man.  If  he 
plunged  the  country  needlessly  into  a  war,  his  would  be  a  terrible  respon- 
sibility. 

Mr.  Allen  then  withdrew  his  own  resolution ;  and,  on  his  motion,  the 
senate  took  up  the  resolutions  passed  by  the  house.  For  these  Mr.  John- 
son, of  Maryland,  then  moved  as  a  substitute,  the  resolutions  of  Mr. 
Crittenden,  somewhat  modified,  which  were  adopted  in  committee  of 
the  whole,  30  to  24,  and  reported  to  the  senate.  Mr.  Allen  denounced 
the  proceedings  most  severely,  and  accused  the  senate  of  dodging  behind 
the  president,  and  shrinking  from  responsibility.  He  pronounced  the 
resolutions  tame,  timid,  as  manacling  the  president,  and  as  producing  a 
division  between  the  two  houses,  and  between  them  and  the  president. 
The  president  had  told  them  he  had  done  with  negotiation,  and  wished 
the  law  making  power  to  take  up  the  subject ;  but  they  were  leaving  all 
to  his  discretion.  If  he  (Mr.  A.)  stood  alone,  he  would  vote  against 
the  resolution. 

Mr.  Crittenden  rejoined  in  vindication  of  the  senate,  and  administered 
a  sharp  rebuke  to  the  senator  for  his  imputations.  "  Upon  what  meat 
does  our  Caesar  feed  that  he  has  grown  so  great,"  thus  to  lecture  sena- 
tors? The  senator  does  not  know  the  senate;  nor  does  he  know  him- 
self, the  wisest  lesson  any  man  can  learn. 

Mr.  Allen  replied  with  vehemence;  and  the  discussion  descending  to 
personalities,  the  vice-president  admonished  the  combatants.  The  ques- 
tion was  then  taken  on  the  third  reading  of  the  resolutions,  and  decided 
in  the  affirmative ;  ayes,  40 ;  noes,  !  4. 

It  remained  for  the  house  to  concur  in  the  resolution  as  amended  in 
the  senate.  Concurrence  was  refused ;  and  an  agreement  was  finally 
efi'ected  by  a  committee  of  conference.  The  resolutions  as  reported  by 
this  committee,  passed  by  a  vote  of  142  to  46.  All  who  voted  in  the 
negative  are  supposed  to  have  been  democrats. 

To  show  the  difi'erence  between  the  resolutions  as  finally  adopted,  and 
what  they  were  as  they  first  passed  the  house,  the  material  parts  of  them 
are  subjoined.     The  resolution  of  Mr.  Boyd,  adopted  by  the  house, 

''  Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  cause  notice  to 
be  given  to  the  government  of  Great  Britain,  that  the  convention 
(describing  the  same)  shall  be  annulled  and  abrogated  twelve  months 
after  giving  said  notice. 

"  And  heit  further  enacted^  That  nothing  herein  contained  is  intended 
to  interfere  with  the  right  and  discretion  of  the  proper  authorities  of  the 
two  contracting  parties  to  renew  or  pursue  negotiations  for  an  amicable 
settlement  of  the  controversy  respecting  the  Oregon  territory." 

The  resolutions  adopted  finally,  after  reciting  the  general  provisions 
of  the  conventions  of  1818  and  1827,  proceed  to  say: 


THE    OREGON    QUESTION.  863 

"  With  a  view,  therefore,  that  steps  be  taken  for  the  abrogation  of  the 
said  convention  of  the  6th  of  August,  1827,  in  the  mode  prescribed  in 
its  2d  article,  and  that  the  attention  of  the  governments  of  both  coun- 
tries may  be  more  earnestly  directed  to  the  adoption  of  all  proper  mea- 
sures for  the  speedy  and  amicable  adjustment  of  the  difficulties  and  dis- 
putes in  relation  to  said  territory  : 

*'  Resolved^  &c.,  That  the  president  of  the  United  States  be,  and  he 
is  hereby  authorized,  at  his  discretion,  to  give  to  the  British  government 
the  notice  required  by  the  said  second  article  for  the  abrogation  of  the 
convention  of  the  6th  of  August,  1827." 

A  large  portion  of  the  debate  on  the  Oregon  question  in  the  senate, 
during  this  session,  was  a  discussion  of  the  question  of  title  and 
boundary.  The  title  of  the  United  States  up  to  the  line  of  54°  40' was 
supported  by  Messrs.  Dix,  Cass,  Dickinson,  and  others ;  by  the  first  of 
these  gentlemen  very  elaborately  and  ably.  Mr.  Benton  toot  strong 
ground  against  them,  contending  for  49°  as  the  true  and  proper  line,  up 
to  which  we  had  a  right,  but  not  beyond.  He  affirmed  "that  every 
American  statesman  of  twenty  and  forty  years  ago — Mr.  Jefferson  and 
Mr.  Madison  in  1807;  Mr.  Monroe  and  his  cabinet  in  1823,  offered  to 
divide  by  49°,  leaving  Frazer's  river  wholly  to  the  British,  and  that 
because  it  belonged  to  them."  He  said  "  the  people  had  been  misled — 
grossly  and  widely  misled — ignorantly  at  first,  as  we  were  bound  to 
believe  ;  designedly  now,  as  we  painfully  see.  The  fifty-four-forty  line, 
never  existed.  The  treaty  proves  it ;  yet  its  existence  is  still  affirmed, 
to  mislead  the  uninformed,  and  to  save  the  misleaders  from  the  mortifi- 
cation of  exposure." 

[Mr.  Benton,  it  is  believed,  had  once  expressed  the  opinion,  that  the 
just  claims  of  the  United  States  extended  beyond  the  49th  degree  of 
north  latitude.] 

The  resolutions  authorizing  the  notice  were  approved  by  the  president 
on  the  27th  of  April.  The  next  day  the  notice  was  executed,  and,  with- 
out delay,  transmitted  to  Mr.  M'Lane,  at  London,  to  be  delivered  in 
person  to  Her  Majesty  Victoria. 

In  the  midst  of  apprehension  and  speculation  on  the  question  of  peace 
or  war,  the  public  suspense  was  suddenly  relieved  by  the  announcement 
of  PEACE !  From  documents  subsequently  published,  it  appeared,  that, 
on  the  6th  of  June,  a  conference  took  place  between  Mr.  Buchanan  and 
Mr.  Pakenhara,  which  resulted  in  a  treaty  concluded  the  15th  of  June. 
The  proposition,  on  the  part  of  the  British  government,  for  the  adjust- 
ment of  the  question,  was  communicated  by  the  president  to  the  senate 
for  its  advice,  in  advance  of  his  own  action  upon  it.  His  own  opinions, 
he  said,  remained  as  they  had  been  expressed  in  his  last  annual  message. 


864  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

A  motive  to  this  previous  consultation  with  the  senate,  probably  was  a 
desire  to  throw  upon  the  senate,  as  far  as  possible,  the  responsibility  of 
accepting  a  proposition  for  the  surrender  of  territory  south  of  54  deg. 
40  min.,  against  which  he  and  his  friends  had  so  strongly  committed 
themselves. 

The  dividing  line  established  by  the  treaty  was  on  the  49th  degree  of 
latitude,  from  the  Stony  Mountains  west  to  the  middle  of  the  channel 
which  separates  Vancouver's  island  from  the  continent;  thence  southerly 
through  the  middle  of  the  channel  and  of  Fuca's  straits  to  the  Pacific 
ocean :  the  whole  of  the  channel  and  straits  south  of  that  parallel  to  be 
free  and  open  to  both  parties;  also  the  great  northern  branch  of  the 
Columbia  river,  from  that  parallel  to  the  main  stream,  and  the  said 
stream  or  river  down  to  the  ocean,  were  to  be  open  to  the  Hudson's  Bay 
company  and  to  the  subjects  of  Grrcat  Britain  trading  with  the  same. 
The  treaty  was  sent  to  England  for  ratification  by  that  government, 
where  it  was  ratified,  and  ratifications  were  exchanged ;  and  was  pro- 
claimed by  the  president  on  the  5th  of  August,  1846. 

Notwithstanding  the  spirit  with  which  a  large  portion  of  the  friends 
of  the  administration  contended  for  "  the  whole  or  none"  of  Oregon,  it 
is  believed  that  few,  upon  calm  consideration,  indulged  regrets  that  Mr. 
Polk  had  yielded  to  what  was  supposed  to  be  the  prevailing  sentiment 
of  the  nation  at  large,  and  had  given  his  official  sanction  to  the  treaty. 
Much  credit  was  awarded  to  Messrs.  Webster,  Calhoun,  and  Benton  for 
their  instrumentality  in  bringing  about  the  adjustment.  The  emphatic 
announcement  of  Mr.  Webster,  that  the  United  States  would  never  con- 
sent to  take  less  than  the  line  of  the  49th  degree,  and  that  upon  this 
point  men  of  all  parties  in  this  country  were  agreed,  probably  aided 
much  in  drawing  from  the  British  ministry  the  proposition  for  settle- 
ment. The  early  and  vigorous  opposition  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  the  course 
of  the  radicals  of  his  own  party  in  the  senate,  was  not  without  effect. 
Then  the  great  speech  of  Mr.  Benton,  at  that  particular  juncture,  when 
both  governments  paused  to  consider  what  course  next  to  pursue,  remov- 
ing all  ground  for  persisting  in  the  refusal  to  accept  the  line  of  the  49  th 
degree,  doubtless  contributed  much  to  induce  Mr.  Polk  to  submit  the 
proposition  to  the  senate.  Thus,  to  the  combined  efforts  of  these  three 
distinguished  senators  is  the  country  indebted,  in  no  small  degree,  for 
averting  the  calamity  of  a  sanguinary  war,  which,  there  is  little  reason 
to  doubt,  would  have  been  the  consequence  of  an  adherence,  on  the  part 
of  the  executive,  to  his  original  purpose. 

The  reasons  upon  which  Mr.  Benton  based  his  concession,  to  Great 
Britain,  of  the  territory  beyond  the  49th  degree, will  be  found  in  the 
following  extract  from  a  speech  delivered  by  him  in  the  senate,  January 
12   1843: 


THE    TARIFF    ACT    OF    1846.  865 

"  Mr.  Benton  said  he  would  not  restate  the  American  title  to  that 
country  :  it  had  been  well  done,  by  others  who  had  preceded  him  in 
debate.  We  would  only  give  a  little  more  development  to  two  points 
— the  treaties  of  1803  and  1819  ;  the  former  with  France,  by  which  we 
acquired  Louisiana ;  the  latter  with  Spain,  by  which  we  acquired  all  her 
rights  on  the  north-west  coast  of  America,  north  of  42  degrees.  By 
the  first  of  these  treaties,  we  became  a  party  to  the  tenth  article  of  the 
treaty  of  Utrecht,  between  France  and  England ;  the  treaty  of  peace  of 
1714,  which  terminated  the  wars  of  Queen  Anne  and  Louis  XIV,  and 
settled  all  their  differences  of  every  kind  in  Europe  and  America,  and 
undertook  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  future  difi'erences  between  them. 
The  tenth  article  of  this  treaty  applied  to  their  settlements  and  terri- 
tories in  North  America,  and  directed  commissaries  to  be  appointed  to 
mark  and  define  their  possessions.  These  commissaries  did  their  work. 
They  drew  a  line  from  ocean  to  ocean,  to  separate  the  French  and  Brit- 
ish dominions,  and  to  prevent  future  encroachment  and  collisions.  This 
line  began  on  the  coast  of  Labrador,  and  followed  a  course  slightly 
south  of  west  to  the  centre  of  North  America,  leaving  the  British  settle- 
ments of  Hudson  Bay  to  the  north,  and  the  French  Canadian  posses- 
sions to  the  south.  This  line  took  for  a  landmark  the  Lake  of  the 
Woods,  which  was  then  believed  to  be  due  east  from  the  head  of  the 
Mississippi ;  and  from  that  point  took  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  lati- 
tude indefinitely  to  the  west.  The  language  of  the  line  is  '  indefinitely;^ 
and  this  established  the  northern  boundary  of  Louisiana,  and  erected  a 
wall  beyond  which  future  French  settlements  could  not  cross  to  the 
north,  nor  British  to  the  south. 

"As  purchasers  of  Louisiana,  the  treaty  of  1803  made  us  party  to 
the  tenth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht^  and  made  the  forty-ninth 
parallel  the  same  to  us  and  the  British  which  it  had  been  to  the  French 
and  the  British  ;  it  became  a  wall  which  neither  could  pass,  so  far  as  it 
depended  upon  that  line." 


CHAPTER  LXIX. 

THE     TARIFF     ACT    OF    1846. THE     WAREHOUSE     SYSTEM. ESTABLISHMENT 

OF    THE    SUB-TREASURY. 

For  months  before  the  meeting  of  congress  in  December,  1845,  indi- 
cations were  given  of  an  attempt  against  the  tariff  of  1842,  and  the 
protective  system.     The  president  and  the  secretary  of  the  treasury, 

55 


866  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

(Mr.  Walker,)  were  both  opposed  to  those  two  features  of  that  tariff  so 
obnoxious  to  anti-protectionists  generally — the  minimum  principle  and 
specific  duties;  and  the  gains  known  to  have  accrued  to  the  anti-tariff 
party,  had  given  protectionists  strong  premonitions  of  a  successful 
attack  upon  their  favorite  policy. 

As  had  been  intimated,  the  message,  in  discussing  the  tariff  question, 
made  a  violent  assault  upon  the  act  of  1842.  "  By  the  introduction  of 
minimums,  or  assumed  false  values,  and  by  the  imposition  of  specific 
duties,  the  injustice  and  inequality  of  that  act,  in  its  practical  operations 
on  different  classes  and  pursuits,  are  seen  and  felt."  Many  of  the 
duties,  the  president  said,  under  the  operation  of  these  principles, 
ranged  from  one  per  cent,  to  more  than  two  hundred  per  cent.  It  was 
so  framed  as  to  throw  much  the  greatest  burden  on  labor  and  the  poorer 
classes.  Articles  of  prime  necessity,  or  of  coarse  quality  and  low  price, 
used  by  the  masses  of  the  people,  were  subjected  to  heavy  duties,  while 
articles  of  fine  quality  and  high  prices,  used  by  the  rich,  were  lightly 
taxed.  He  therefore  recommended  the  abolition  of  specific  duties  and 
minimums,  and  the  adoption  of  ad  valorem  duties,  with  a  general  modi- 
fication and  reduction  of  the  rates  of  duty.  Congress  might  discrimi- 
nate in  arranging  the  duties  on  different  articles ;  but  the  discrimination 
should  be  within  the  revenue  standard,  and  be  made  with  the  view  to 
raise  money  for  the  support  of  government.  His  views  of  a  revenue 
standard  were  thus  given  : 

"  It  becomes  important  to  understand  distinctly  what  is  meant  by  a 
revenue  standard,  the  maximum  of  which  should  not  be  exceeded  in  the 
rates  of  duty  imposed.  It  is  conceded,  and  experience  proves,  that  duties 
may  be  laid  so  high  as  to  diminish  or  prohibit  altogether,  the  importation 
of  any  given  article,  and  thereby  lessen  or  destroy  the  revenue  which, 
at  lower  rates,  would  be  derived  from  the  importation.  Such  duties 
exceed  the  revenue  rates,  and  are  not  imposed  to  raise  money  for  the 
support  of  government.  If  congress  levy  a  duty  for  revenue  of  one  per 
cent,  on  a  given  article,  it  will  produce  a  given  amount  of  money  to  the 
treasury,  and  will  incidentally  and  necessarily  afford  protection  or 
advantage,  to  the  amount  of  one  per  cent,  to  the  home  manufacturer 
of  a  similar  or  like  article  over  the  importer.  If  the  duty  be  raised  to 
ten  per  cent.,  it  will  produce  a  greater  amount  of  money,  and  afford 
greater  protection.  If  it  be  still  raised  to  twenty,  twenty-five,  or 
thirty  per  cent.,  and  if,  as  it  is  raised,  the  revenue  derived  from  it  is 
found  to  be  increased,  the  protection  or  advantage  will  also  be  increased; 
but  if  it  be  raised  to  thirty-one  per  cent.,  and  it  is  found  that  the  reve- 
nue produced  at  that  rate  is  less  than  at  thirty  per  cent.,  it  ceases  to  be 
a  revenue  duty.     The  precise  point  in  the  ascending  scale  of  duties  at 


THE   TARIFF    OF    1846.  867 

which  it  is  ascertained  from  experience  that  the  revenue  is  greatest,  is 
the  maximum  rate  of  duty  which  can  be  laid  for  the  bona  fide  purpose 
of  collecting  money  for  the  support  of  government.  To  raise  the  duties 
higher  than  that  point,  aud  thereby  diminish  the  amount  collected,  is  to 
levy  them  for  protection  merely,  and  not  for  revenue.  As  long,  then, 
as  congress  miay  gradually  increase  the  rate  of  duty  on  a  given  article, 
and  the  revenue  is  increased  by  such  increase  of  duty,  they  are  within 
the  revenue  standard.  When  they  go  beyond  that  point,  and,  as  they 
increase  the  duties,  the  revenue  is  diminished  or  destroyed,  the  act 
ceases  to  have  for  its  object  the  raising  of  money  to  suppart  government, 
but  it  is  for  protection  merely. 

"  It  does  not  follow  that  congress  should  levy  the  highest  duty  on 
all  articles  of  import  which  they  will  bear  within  the  revenue  standard; 
for  such  rates  would  probably  produce  a  much  larger  amount  than  the 
economical  administration  of  the  government  would  require.  "Nor  does 
it  follow  that  the  duties  on  articles  should  be  at  the  same  or  a  horizon- 
tal rate.  Some  articles  will  bear  a  much  higher  revenue  duty  than 
others." 

The  message  was  followed  up  and  sustained  by  the  report  of  the  secre- 
tary of  the  treasury.  The  secretary  said  the  revenue  for  the  first  quar- 
ter of  the  year  was  about  two  millions  less  than  for  the  same  quarter 
last  year.  This  decrease  he  ascribed  to  the  diminution  of  the  importa- 
tion of  some  highly  protected  articles  by  the  substitution  of  rival 
domestic  products.  The  average  of  duties  upon  dutiable  imports  had 
been,  during  the  nine  remaining  months  of  the  first  year,  under  the 
tarifi"of  1842,  about  37  per  cent. ;  for  the  year  ending  June,  1844,  33 
per  cent.;  for  1845,  about  30  per  cent.;  the  diminished  per  centage 
being  caused  by  the  increased  importation  of  some  goods  paying  lighter 
duties,  and  the  decreased  importation  of  others  bearing  the  higher  duties. 
The  revenue  from  ad  valorem  duties  the  last  year  had  exceeded  that 
from  specific  duties,  although  the  average  of  the  former  was  only  about 
23  per  cent.,  and  the  average  of  the  latter,  about  41 — presenting  another 
strong  proof  that  lower  duties  increase  the  revenue. 

The  secretary  had  adopted,  in  suggesting  improvements  in  the  revenue 
laws,  the  following  principles:  1st.  No  more  should  be  collected  than 
was  necessary  for  the  actual  wants  of  the  government.  2d.  No  duty 
should  be  imposed  on  any  article  above  the  lowest  rate  which  would 
yield  the  most  revenue.  3d.  Below  such  rate,  discrimination  might  be 
made,  descending  in  the  scale  of  duties  ;  or,  for  imperative  reasons,  the 
article  might  be  made  free  from  duty.  4th.  The  maximum  revenue 
duty  should  be  imposed  on  luxuries.  5th.  Minimums  and  specific 
duties  should  be  abolished,  and  ad  valorem  duties  substituted — ^guard- 


868  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ing  against  fraudulent  invoices  and  undervaluation,  and  assessing  the 
duty  upon  the  actual  market  value.  6th.  The  duties  should  be  so  im- 
posed as  to  operate  as  equally  as  possible  throughout  the  union,  and 
upon  the  diflferent  classes. 

A  horizontal  scale  of  duties — that  is,  a  uniform  rate  upon  all  articles 
— was  not  recommended,  because  that  would  be  a  refusal  to  discrimi- 
nate for  revenue,  and  might  sink  the  revenue  below  the  wants  of  the 
government.  Some  articles  would  yield  the  largest  revenue  at  rates 
which  would  be  wholly  or  partially  prohibitory  in  other  cases.  Luxuries, 
as  a  general  rule,  would  bear  the  highest  revenue  duties ;  but  even 
some  very  costly  luxuries,  easily  smuggled,  would  bear  but  a  light  duty 
for  revenue ;  whilst  other  articles  of  great  bulk  and  weight,  would  bear 
a  higher  duty  for  revenue .  There  must  be  discrimination  for  revenue, 
or  the  burthen  of  taxation  must  be  augmented,  in  order  to  bring  the 
same  ambunt  of  money  into  the  treasury.  Hence  it  was  difficult, 
he  said,  to  adopt  any  arbitrary  maximum  which  would  answer  in  all 
cases. 

The  report  of  the  secretary  was  immediately  subjected  to  a  severe 
criticism,  both  in  and  out  of  congress.  Mr.  Andrew  Stewart,  of  Penn- 
sylvania, on  the  question  of  referring  that  part  of  the  message  relating 
to  the  tariff,  moved  to  instruct  the  committee  to  report,  "  as  the  sense 
of  this  house,  that  the  tariff  of  1842  ought  not  to  be  disturbed." 

The  secretary  had  pronounced  the  tariff  of  1842  unconstitutional, 
because  it  exceeded  the  revenue  limit.  A  tariff  bill,  he  said,  was  a 
bill  for  raising  revenue,  which  was  the  only  proper  object  of  such  a  bill. 
"  Whenever  it  departed  from  that  object,  in  whole  or  in  part,  either  by 
total  or  partial  prohibition,  it  violated  the  purpose  of  the  granted 
power."  Mr.  Stewart  referred  to  the  messages  of  Washington,  Jefferson, 
Madison,  and  Monroe,  all  of  whom  had  emphatically  recommended  the 
protection  of  domestic  manufactures.  He  also  read  the  following  lucid 
exposition  from  the  second  annual  message  of  president  Jackson  : 

"  The  power  to  impose  duties  upon  imports  originally  belonged  to 
the  several  states.  The  right  to  adjust  these  duties,  with  a  view  to  the 
encouragement  of  domestic  industry,  is  so  completely  identical  with 
that  power,  that  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  the  existence  of  the  one  with- 
out the  other.  The  states  have  delegated  their  whole  authority  over 
imports  to  the  general  government,  without  limitation  or  restriction, 
saving  the  very  inconsiderable  reservation  relating  to  the  inspection 
laws.  This  authority  having  thus  entirely  passed  from  the  states,  the 
right  to  exercise  it  for  the  purpose  of  protection  does  not  exist  in  them ; 
and,  consequently,  if  it  be  not  possessed  by  the  general  government,  it 
must  be  extinct.     Our  political  system  would  thus  present  the  anamoly 


THE    TARIFF    OF    1846.  869 

of  a  people  stripped  of  the  right  to  foster  their  own  industry,  and  to 
counteract  the  most  selfish  and  destructive  policy  which  might  be 
adopted  by  foreign  nations.  This  surely  cannot  be  the  case ;  this  in- 
dispensable power,  thus  surrendered  by  the  states,  must  be  within  the 
scope  of  authority  on  the  subject  expressly  delegated  to  congress.  In 
this  conclusion  I  am  confirmed,  as  well  by  the  opinions  of  Presidents 
Washington,  Jeiferson,  Madison,  and  Monroe,  who  have  each  repeatedly 
recommended  this  right  under  the  constitution,  as  by  the  uniform  prac- 
tice of  congress,  the  continued  acquiescence  of  the  states,  and  the  general 
understanding  of  the  people.'' 

In  answer  to  the  question  of  Cave  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  Who  pays 
the  duties  when  the  government  protects  manufactures?  Mr.  Stewart 
said,  the  gentleman  and  his  friends  held  that  the  consumer  always  paid 
the  duty ;  and  the  secretary  had  told  the  nation  that  the  poor  man  was 
taxed  eighty-two  per  cent,  on  cotton  goods  over  the  rich  man.  This 
unhappy  "poor  man"  was  taxed  one  hundred  and  fifty  per  cent,  on  his 
cotton  shirt,  because  there  was  a  specific  duty  on  imported  cotton  goods 
of  nine  cents  a  yard !  This  specific  duty  of  nine  cents  was  just  one 
hundred  and  fifty  per  cent,  on  six  cents,  the  price  paid  by  the  poor  man 
for  his  cotton.  So  the  practical  effect  of  this  horrid  tax  was,  that  the 
poor  man  got  a  good  shirt  at  sixpence  a  yard.  Those  abominable  min- 
imuras,  so  obnoxious  to  the  secretary,  had  been  introduced  by  John  C. 
Calhoun  and  William  Lowndes,  since  which,  the  price  of  the  poor  man's 
cloth  had  fallen  from  thirty-six  to  six  cents  a  yard.  On  that  thirty-six 
cents,  the  tariff  laid  a  duty  of  nine  cents,  which  was  then  but  twenty- 
five  per  cent,  ad  valorem  /  now  it  was  one  hundred  and  fifty  per  cent. ; 
and  why  ?  because  the  price  had  been  reduced  from  thirty-six  to  six 
cents  a  yard !  Let  the  manufacturer  run  up  the  price  to  thirty-six 
cents  again,  and  the  duty  of  nine  cents  a  yard  would  fall  to  twenty-five 
per  cent. ;  and,  according  to  the  secretary,  the  oppression  would  all  be 
over  :  these  friends  of  the  poor  man  would  be  perfectly  satisfied. 

Mr.  Johnson  asked  again,  if  the  tariff  brought  down  prices,  why  did 
the  manufacturer  want  it  ?  and  what  was  it  that  reduced  the  price  of 
other  goods  in  proportion  ? 

Mr.  Stewart  replied  that  such  was  not  the  fact.  Silks,  velvets,  and 
other  goods  not  manufactured  here,  had  not  declined  in  the  same  pro- 
portion ;  nor  had  wages  or  agricultural  produce ;  because  the  protec- 
tive tariff  had  increased  the  supply  of  domestic  goods  by  increasing  com- 
petition, and  had  sustained  wages  and  agricultural  produce  by  creating 
an  increased  demand  for  both.  If  the  gentleman  could  comprehend 
that  demand  and  supply  regulate  price,  it  would  be  all  plain  to  him. 

Mr.  S.  resumed  his  illustrations.     No  ad  valorem  duties  were  im- 


870  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

posed  by  the  tariff  of  1842  above  50  per  cent. ;  how  then  did  the  presi< 
dent  in  his  message  get  duties  of  200  per  cent.  ?  Just  by  converting 
the  specific  duties  into  ad  valorem.  For  if  the  duty  is  x!00  per  cent., 
the  price  must  be  one-half  only  of  the  duty.  Thus,  glass  is  said  to  pay 
the  enormous  duty  of  200  per  cent.;  and  why  ?  because  the  duty  was 
•  $4  per  box,  and  the  price  |2.  But  if  glass  should  fall  to  $1  per  box, 
the  duty  would  be  400  per  cent.  !  Nails  in  1816  were  16  cents  a 
pound ;  on  which  a  duty  was  laid  of  four  cents  a  pound,  which  was  25 
per  cent,  on  the  price  ;  but  according  to  the  secretary's  report,  the  duty 
was  now  100  per  cent.,  because  the  price  had  fallen  to  four  cents  a 
pound !  It  was  upon  such  a  principle  as  this  that  the  secretary  based 
his  statement,  that  the  people  paid  a  tax  of  eighty-four  millions^  of 
which  but  twenty-seven  went  to  the  government,  and  fifty-four  to  the 
manufacturers.  The  secretary  referred  to  a  list  of  sixty  or  seventy  ar- 
ticles paying  specific  duties,  which,  by  being  converted  into  ad  valorem^ 
amounted  to  more  than  100  per  cent.  And  what  did  this  prove? 
Simply  that  the  prices  of  these  articles  had  greatly  fallen,  as  in  the 
case  of  cottons.  The  explanation  of  all  this,  said  Mr.  S.,  was  plain 
and  easy.  Competition,  machinery,  skill,  and  industry,  had  increased 
the  supply ;  and  the  increased  supply  had  reduced  the  prices  of  glass, 
cotton,  &c.,  while  it  had  rendered  the  whole  country  prosperous  by  an 
increased  demand  for  all  the  productions  of  the  farmers. 

Mr.  S.  commented  upon  the  president's  definition  of  a  revenue  stand- 
ard of  duty,  and  his  rule  for  laying  duties.  According  to  that  rule, 
when  the  American  manufacturer  had  succeeded  in  supplying  our  own 
market,  and  begun  to  thrive,  that  would  prove  that  the  duty  was  no 
longer  a  revenue  duty,  but  had  become  a  'protective  duty,  and  must  be 
reduced.  As  the  American  furnished  7riore  goods  to  the  country,  less 
foreign  goods  would  be  imported,  revenue  would  be  diminished,  and  the 
duty  must  come  down.  Under  such  a  rule,  what  man  in  his  senses 
would  invest  a  dollar  in  manufactures  ?  When,  by  industry  and  enter- 
prise, he  was  getting  the  better  of  his  foreign  competitor,  the  duty  must 
go  down.  If  a  shoemaker  or  a  hatter  had  got  possession  of  the  market, 
the  eye  of  this  free  trade  system  was  fastened  on  him  like  a  vulture. 
The  secretary  found  he  was  doing  too  well,  and  the  duty  must  be  reduced 
to  let  in  the  foreigner.  The  moment  the  American  was  raised  to  his 
feet  in  this  struggle  with  foreigners  for  the  American  market,  he  was  to 
be  knocked  down  by  the  executive  poker ^  and  walked  over  by  his  secre- 
tary Walker.  And  this  was  their  American  system.  It  was  a  British 
system — just  such  a  one  as  Sir  Robert  Peel  would  have  recommended, 
if  he  could  have  spoken  through  Mr.  Polk. 

The  secretary  had  said  :  "  Experience  proves  that,  as  a  general  rule, 


THE    TARIFF    OF    1848.  871 

a  duty  of  twenty  per  cent,  ad  valorem^  ^1*11  yield  the  largest  revenue." 
Mr.  Stewart  asked,  What  was  the  well-known  experience  of  the  country  ? 
We  had  a  tariff  of  twenty  per  cent,  in  1841-2,  and  what  was  the  revenue? 
Not  one-half  its  present  amount.  The  revenue  from  imports  was  then 
about  thirteen  millions  ;  this  year  twenty-seven  millions.  Under  the 
operation  of  that  twenty  per  cent,  horizontal  duty,  the  business  of  the 
country  was  prostrate,  the  government  was  bankrupt,  and  the  people 
little  better.  If  the  duties  were  reduced  to  a  certain  point,  the 
duties  would  be  insufficient  to  meet  the  public  expenditures.  To 
make  up  the  revenue,  the  importations  must  be  increased  to  such 
an  amount  as  to  drain  the  country  of  its  specie,  and  soon  leave  it 
without  the  ability  to  buy.  These  facts  had  never  been  successfully 
answered. 

Mr.  S.  said  the  message  and  report  assumed^  that  protective  duties 
had  increased  prices.  This  he  denied.  He  could  prove,  by  documents, 
by  every  price  current,  and  every  merchant  in  the  country,  that  the 
prices  of  protected  goods  had  been  reduced  by  competition  since  the 
introduction  of  minimums  and  specific  duties  in  1816,  to  one-half,  one- 
third,  one-fourth,  and  even  to  one-sixth  part  of  what  they  were  at  that 
time.  And  while  the  poor  man  was  now  supplied  at  lower  prices,  the 
prices  of  labor,  and  of  the  produce  of  the  farmer,  owing  to  the  increased 
demand  produced  by  the  increase  of  manufactures,  had  undergone  little 
or  no  reduction.  He  challenged  the  president  and  secretary  to  prove 
that,  in  a  single  instance,  protective  duties  had  permanently  increased 
prices. 

The  president  and  secretary  wanted  a  tariff  just  sufficient  to  meet  the 
public  expenditures,  and  no  more.  The  present  tariff,  then,  was  just  the 
thing.  They  tell  us  the  expenditures  have  been  this  year  $29,968,207, 
and  the  revenue,  $29,769,133.  Why,  then,  disturb  or  change  the  tariff? 
Last  year,  when  threatened  with  a  large  surplus,  we  were  told  that  the 
tariff  must  be  reduced  to  reduce  the  revenue.  Now  we  are  told  we  must 
reduce  the  tariff  to  increase  the  revenue.  Mr.  Stewart  continued  his 
review  of  the  message  and  report,  commenting  upon  several  other  parts 
of  them,  quoting  from  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  from  Gen.  Jackson's  letter  to 
Dr.  Coleman.  He  also  considered  the  effect  of  the  tariff  upon  agricul- 
ture. His  argument  was  substantially  the  same  on  this  point  as  in  1827, 
and  as  given  in  a  preceding  chapter. 

A  long  time  was  spent  by  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  in  connection 
with  the  committee  of  ways  and  means,  in  adjusting  a  bill,  which  was  at 
length  (April  14)  reported  to  the  house  by  Mr.  M'Kay.  Having  given 
liberal  abstracts  of  former  discussions  on  this  subject,  it  is  considered 
unnecessary  to  present  a  sketch  of  the  debate  at  this  session.     By  a  vote 


872  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  the  house,  the  debate  was  to  terminate  the  2d  of  July,  at  2  o'clock, 
and  voting  to  commence.  On  the  30th  of  June,  an  attack  was  made 
upon  it  which  was  succeeded  by  sundry  amendments.  Niles'  Register, 
of  July  4,  in  giving  an  account  of  the  proceedings,  says  : 

On  Tuesday,  a  great  sensation  was  produced  in  the  house  by  a  speech 
delivered  by  Mr.  Brinkerhoof,  a  leading  administration  member  from 
Ohio,  who  announced  that  he  was  authorized  to  say,  on  behalf  of  the 
administration  members  of  that  state,  that  they  were  unanimously 
opposed  to  Mr.  McKay's  bill,  and  would  not  vote  for  it.  He  attacked 
the  course  of  the  administration  in  very  strong  and  plain  language,  and 
that  of  the  "  organ"  at  Washington  (the  Union)  especially.  He  asserted 
that  those  who  agreed  with  him  in  the  course  proposed,  "  could  defeat  the 
bill,  and  would  defeat  it."  Mr.  B.  was  opposed  to  taxing  tea  and  coffee. 
He  complained  bitterly  that,  after  declaring  that  Oregon  was  ours  of  right, 
up  to  54  degrees,  40  minutes,  the  government  had  come  down  below  49 
degrees,  and  given  up  the  navigation  of  the  Columbia.  Now  we  must  pay 
for  a  war  for  southern  conquest,  after  you  have  given  away  millions  upon 
millions  of  acres  of  our  own  territory  at  the  north.  Will  you  now  ask  from 
us  to  grant  you  a  tax  on  tea  and  coffee  ?  And  do  you  think  we  will  give 
it?  No ;  we  will  do  no  such  thing.  I  said  in  the  beginning  that  I  rose 
here  to  have  some  plain  talk.  And  now  I  ask  you,  suppose  you  strike 
out  tea  and  coffee  from  your  bill,  what  then  ?  I  have  always  stood  up 
for  a  revenue  tariff;  I  stand  for  it  still.  I  will  go  neither  for  a  tariff 
for  protection,  nor  for  a  tariff  for  the  destruction  of  revenue  ;  and  there- 
fore the  next  question  is,  will  your  bill  raise  revenue  enough  for  the  use 
of  the  government  without  tea  and  coffee  ?  The  average  expenditure  of 
this  government  has  been  shown  to  be  nearly  twenty-six  millions  per 
annum  ;  and  you  have  brought  us  a  bill  which,  without  tea  and  coffee, 
will  not  give  you  eighteen  millions.  I  am  under  no  pledge  to  go  for  a 
tariff  to  destroy  revenue,  and  especially  when  it  is  foreseen  and  so 
intended,  that  this  shall  lead  to  a  permanent  tax  on  tea  and  coffee.  "  To 
go  with  our  eyes  open,  and  with  full  knowledge,  for  the  destruction 
of  a  tariff  which  does  yield  sufficient  revenue,  to  a  bill  which  begins  with 
a  deficit  of  three  or  four  millions,  we  can  not  do  it ;  and  we  will  not 
do  it." 

This  was  the  introduction  to  a  violent  debate,  in  which  many  members 
participated.  The  debate  closed  at  the  time  appointed,  after  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  seventy -third  speech.  Then  commenced  a  succession  of  pro- 
positions for  amendment,  Mr.  M'Kay  himself  taking  the  lead.  Among 
the  amendments  adopted,  was  the  exempting  of  tea  and  coffee  from  duty. 
On  this  the  treasurer  had  calculated  for  some  three  millions  of  revenue. 
To  these  articles  was  added  salt^  which  would  considerably  diminish  it. 


THE    WAREHOUSE    SYSTEM.  873 

The  vote  by  whicli  this  article  had  been  made  free,  was  reconsidered  and 
reversed.     The  bill  was  passed  by  the  house,  1 14  to  94. 

In  the  senate,  the  bill  continued  in  suspense  about  three  weeks.  The 
senate  being  known  to  be  nearly  equally  divided  upon  it,  the  final  action 
of  that  body  was  awaited  with  great  anxiety.  Senator  Haywood,  of 
North  Carolina,  a  democrat,  resigned  his  seat  before  the  vote  was  taken. 
Mr.  H.  was  opposed  to  the  tariff  of  1842,  as  also  to  the  present  bill ; 
considering  the  former  too  highly  protective,  and  the  latter  as  insuffi- 
cient to  provide  the  necessary  revenue.  His  resignation,  which,  it  was 
apprehended,  would  effect  the  defeat  of  the  bill,  subjected  him  to  severe 
censure  from  his  political  friends.  He  was  denounced  by  the  "  official" 
paper  as  "  an  apostate  and  deserter,"  and  as  having  "  surrendered  his 
post  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy."  The  governor  of  North  Carolina 
being  a  whig,  it  was  presumed  that  a  tariff  senator  would  be  appointed 
in  his  place.  Mr.  Haywood  was  in  favor  of  the  tariff  bill  of  1844, 
reported  by  Mr.  M'Kay. 

The  fate  of  the  bill  was  now  considered  suspended  upon  the  vote  of 
Mr.  Jarnagin,  a  whig  senator  from  Tennessee,  who,  though  opposed  to 
the  bill,  had  been  instructed  by  the  democratic  legislature  of  his  state  to 
vote  for  the  repeal  of  the  tariff  of  1842;  and  he  considered  himself 
bound  to  obey  the  instructions.  To  insure  his  vote,  however,  and  the 
votes  of  several  others,  an  objectionable  provision  of  the  bill  was  removed, 
and  the  bill  was  then  passed,  28  to  27  ;  its  passage  having  been  effected 
by  the  vote  of  Mr.  Jarnagin.  The  house  concurred  in  the  amendment. 
Thus  was  established  what  was  denominated  the  "revenue  tariff"  of 
1846. 

A  bill  was  also  passed,  establishing  what  is  called  the  warehouse 
system.  By  the  provisions  of  this  act,  goods  imported  may  be  deposited 
in  the  public  stores  without  the  payment  of  the  duties,  there  to  be  kept 
at  the  charge  and  risk  of  the  owner,  importer,  or  consignee.  The  goods 
are  to  be  redelivered  at  any  time  within  a  year,  on  the  payment  of  the 
duties ;  or,  without  the  payment  of  duties,  if  they  are  to  be  reshipped, 
on  security  being  given  that  they  shall  be  landed  out  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  United  States.  This  bill,  it  was  apprehended  by  the  opposi- 
tion, would  materially  affect  the  revenue.  It  was  pronounced  "an 
adjunct  to  the  anti-protective  tariff  act."  It  would  enable  foreigners  to 
send  in  their  goods  at  pleasure,  and  to  store  them  in  our  warehouses 
without  paying  duties,  until  the  market  should  please  the  owners. 
Hence  it  was  called  "  a  law  to  provide  storehouses  for  foreign  goods  at 
a  low  rent."  One  effect  of  the  law  was,  that  goods  being  admitted 
immediately,  large  quantities  were  imported,  and  deposited  until  the 
1st  of  December  following,  when  the  new  tariff  went  into  operation;  thus 


874  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

allowing  the  foreigner  to  avail  himself  of  the  advantage  of  the  low  duties. 
At  this  session  also  was  passed  the  act  for  reestablishing  the  sub- 
treasury,  which  had  been  repealed  in  1842.  In  pursuance  of  a  recom- 
mendation by  the  president  in  his  annual  message,  a  bill  was  reported 
early  in  the  session,  by  the  committee  of  ways  and  means.  It  passed  the 
house  April  2d,  by  a  vote  of  123  to  67.  It  passed  the  senate,  August 
1st,  by  a  strict  party  vote,  28  to  24. 

One  of  the  principal  provisions  of  this  law,  and  that  which,  perhaps, 
was  deemed  most  objectionable,  and  which  was  by  some  considered  imprac- 
ticable, was  that  which  required  all  receivers  and  disbursers  of  the  public 
revenue,  including  all  postmasters,  to  collect  and  pay  out  specie  only. 
The  opponents  of  the  measure  apprehended  that  the  employment  of  so 
large  a  portion  of  the  specie  of  the  country  in  the  payment  of  duties  and 
other  financial  transactions,  would  have  an  unfavorable  effect  upon  the 
currency,  and  embarrass  commercial  operations  generally.  The  expen- 
siveness  of  the  system  was  also  urged  as  an  objection.  The  cost  of  the 
necessary  rooms,  vaults,  safes,  &c.,  in  the  different  places  where  the 
revenue  is  collected,  and  the  compensation  of  the  numerous  treasurers, 
assistants,  and  clerks,  might  all  be  saved  by  the  employment  of  banks  to 
receive,  keep,  and  pay  out  the  public  moneys.  How  faithfully  the  pro- 
visions of  the  law  have  been  carried  out,  we  have  before  us  no  data  from 
which  the  fact  can  be  determined.  So  far,  however,  as  it  applies  to  post- 
masters, its  provisions  are  but  little,  if  at  all  observed. 


CHAPTER  LXX. 

PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN    OF    1848. ELECTION    OF    GEN.    TAYLOR. 

As  early  as  the  summer  of  1846,  soon  after  the  early  and  successful 
battles  in  the  Mexican  war,  and  before  the  presidential  question  had  been 
much  agitated,  the  name  of  Gen.  Taylor  began  to  be  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  the  presidency  of  1848.  At  an  early  period  of  the  next 
year,  formal  nominations  of  the  general  at  public  meetings  had  already 
become  frequent.  Several  letters  addressed  him  on  the  subject,  with  his 
replies,  had  appeared  in  the  papers ;  and  long  before  the  close  of  the 
year,  he  was  prominently  before  the  people  as  a  candidate.  Although  he 
was  said  to  be  a  whig,  he  had  in  all  his  letters  disclaimed  party  attach- 
ments and  party  preferences,  and  had  scrupulously  refrained  from  any 
declaration  of  his  political  opinions. 


PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN    OF    1848.  875 

Many  of  the  old  and  firm  friends  of  Mr.  Clay  were  reluctant  to  aban- 
don their  long-tried  candidate.  Others,  though  they  had  no  personal 
objection  to  Mr.  Clay,  doi^bting  his  availability,  were  for  dropping  him 
for  "  some  man,"  to  use  the  language  of  a  prominent  whig  editor — 
"whose  name  had  not  been  for  years  the  watch-word  of  party  divisions ; 
who  commands,  by  his  character  and  his  acts,  the  respect  and  admiration 
of  the  whole  country,  and  whom  all  men  and  all  parties  can  support, 
without  giving  the  lie  to  their  past  conduct.  If  there  is  any  such  man 
in  this  country  at  present,  it  is  Gen.  Taylor." 

It  soon  became  apparent,  however,  that  he  could  not  obtain  the  unani- 
mous support  of  the  whig  party.  He  was  a  slaveholder,  and  it  was  pre- 
sumed that  he  was  in  favor  of  the  extension  of  slavery,  or  at  least  that 
his  influence  would  not  be  exerted  against  it.  The  acquisition  of  an 
extensive  territory  from  Mexico  was  then  in  prospect ;  and  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  whig  party,  being  committed  to  the  Wilmot  proviso,  were 
opposed  to  the  election  of  any  man  for  president  who  was  not  known 
to  be  in  favor  of  applying  that  proviso  to  the  territories  of  the  United 
States.  Another  objection  to  Gen.  Taylor  was,  that  he  was  not  a  pro- 
fessed whig.  Indeed  he  disavowed  having  any  connection  with,  or  affinity 
for  any  political  party;  and  declared  the  purpose  of  being  elected,  if  at 
all,  as  a  no-party  candidate.  In  reply  to  a  letter  from  a  committee  of  a 
democratic  meeting  in  Tennessee,  which  had  solicited  an  expression  of 
his  views  in  relation  to  the  principles  of  that  party^  he  refused  to  noiake 
any  declaration  of  his  sentiments,  saying,  that,  even  if  disposed  to  do  so, 
he  could  not  spare  the  time  from  his  official  duties  for  such  an  investiga- 
tion of  political  subjects  as  would  enable  him  to  make  a  reply  satisfactory 
to  himself  or  to  the  committee.  He  had  been  for  nearly  forty  years  in 
the  military  service,  most  of  the  time  in  the  field,  in  the  camp,  or  on  the 
western  frontier — situations  unfavorable  to  investigation — and  during 
which  period  he  had  not  even  voted  for  a  chief  magistrate  or  any  other 
public  officer ;  having  been  during  the  greater  part  of  the  time  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  states.  If  elected — which  would  be  done  without  any 
agency  of  his  own — he  would  serve  the  people  honestly  and  faithfully, 
and  in  conformity  to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution,  according  to  the 
construction  and  practice  of  the  early  presidents,  two  of  whom  (Wash 
ington  and  Madison)  had  participated  in  creating  it  and  putting  it  into 
operation. 

In  a  letter  to  Dr.  Bronson,  of  South  Carolina,  he  said :  "  If  I  were 
called  to  the  presidential  chair  hy  the  general  voice  of  the  people^  ivith- 
mit  regard  to  their  pfolitical  differences^  I  should  deem  it  to  be  my  duty 
to  accept  the  office."  But  he  said  "  he  could  not  submit  to  the  exaction 
of  any  other  pledge  as  to  the  course  he  should  pursue,  than  that  of  dis- 


876  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

charging  the  functions  of  the  office  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  constitution."  In  this  letter 
he  went  so  far  as  to  say,  that  though  he  had  never  exercised  the  privilege 
of  voting,  had  he  been  called  upon  at  the  last  presidential  election  to  do 
so,  he  should  most  certainly  have  cast  his  vote  for  Mr.  Clay. 

Probably  no  other  candidate  for  the  presidency  ever  wrote  so  many 
letters  relating  to  his  nomination  and  election ;  and  in  all  his  corres- 
pondence he  maintained  the  position  first  assumed,  that  "  he  would  not  be 
the  candidate  of  any  party ;"  that  "  if  he  ever  filled  that  high  office,  it 
must  be  untrammeled  with  party  obligations  ;"  that  he  "  would  be  the 
chief  magistrate  of  the  nation,  and  not  of  a  party;"  that  he  "  could  not 
in  any  case  permit  himself  to  be  brought  before  the  people  exclusively 
by  any  of  the  political  parties,  that  now  so  unfortunately  divided  the 
country."  He  had  no  objection  to  being  nominated  by  meetings  or  con- 
ventions, whether  designated  as  whig,  democratic,  or  native ;  but  he 
"  must  insist  on  the  condition — and  his  position  on  this  point  was  im- 
mutable— that  he  should  not  be  brought  forward  as  the  candidate  of  any 
party,  or  considered  as  the  exponent  of  its  party  doctrines."  Again  :  if 
elected,  he  would  "  look  to  the  constitution,  and  the  high  interests  of 
our  common  country,  and  not  to  the  principles  of  a  party,  for  his  rules 
of  action  ;"  and  "  if  the  whig  party  desired  at  the  next  presidential  elec- 
tion to  east  their  votes  for  him,  they  must  do  it  on  their  own  responsi- 
bility, and  without  any  pledges  from  him."  And  again,  he  said  :  "If 
nominated  by  the  whig  national  convention,  I  shall  not  refuse  acceptance, 
provided  I  am  left  free  of  all  pledges,  and  permitted  to  maintain  the 
position  of  independence  of  all  parties,  in  which  the  people  and  my  own 
sense  of  duty,  have  placed  me  :  otherwise  I  shall  refuse  the  nomination  of 
any  convention  or  party."  And  he  said  farther,  that  he  did  not  intend 
to  withdraw  his  name,  though  Mr.  Clay  should  be  the  nominee  of  the 
national  convention,  or  whoever  might  be  nominated  by  the  national  con- 
vention of  either  party. 

These  repeated  declarations  of  Gen.  Taylor,  that  he  would  not  be  the 
candidate  of  the  whig  party,  as  a  party,  or  assume  any  party  obligation, 
were  considered  by  a  large  portion  of  the  whig  party,  as  an  insuperable 
objection  to  his  receiving  a  nomination.  A  man  "  who  would  not  be  the 
exponent  of  whig  doctrines,"  ought  not  to  receive  the  nomination  of  the 
whig  convention. 

The  democratic  national  convention  met  at  Baltimore  on  the  22d  of 
May,  1848.  The  president  of  the  convention  was  Andrew  Stevenson,  of 
Virginia.  The  two-thirds  rule,  as  in  former  late  conventions,  was  adopted. 
The  harmony  of  the  convention  was  much  disturbed  by  the  conflicting 
claims  of  two  sets  of  delegates  from  the  state  of  New  York,  designated 


PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN   OP   1848.  877 

"  Hunkers"  and  "  Barnburners,"  each  claiming  to  be  tbe  regular  dele- 
gates. Members  of  each  delegation  were  allowed  to  advocate  their 
respective  claims.  On  the  4th  day  of  the  session,  by  a  vote  of  133  to 
118,  both  delegations  were  admitted  to  seats  in  the  convention,  with 
power  jointly  to  cast  the  vote  of  the  state.  Mr.  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  of 
the  Hunker  delegation,  made  a  formal  protest  against  the  admission  of 
both  delegations,  as  calculated  to  satisfy  neither  party.  Mr.  Cambreleng, 
of  the  other  party,  asked  leave  for  the  Barnburner  delegation  to  retire, 
which  was  granted.  The  next  day,  the  latter  delegation  having  left,  Mr. 
James  C.  Smith,  one  of  their  number,  presented  a  protest  against  the 
action  of  the  convention ;  and  the  delegation  declined  taking  seats  with 
the  others,  the  former  alone  being  entitled  to  them.  Mr.  Dickinson,  in 
behalf  of  the  Hunkers,  said  they  could  not  vote  in  the  convention,  con- 
sistently with  dignity  and  propriety.  So  neither  delegation  took  part  in 
the  nominktions. 

Gen.  Cass,  on  the  first  ballot,  received  125  votes,  being  just  one-half 
of  the  whole  number  cast ;  on  the  second  ballot  he  received  153,  being  a 
large  majority ;  and  on  the  4th  ballot,  179;  Mr.  Woodbury,  38;  Mr. 
Buchanan,  33 ;  and  Gen.  Worth,  3.  Having  a  majority  of  two-thirds, 
Gen.  Cass  was  declared  nominated.  For  candidate  for  vice-president, 
Gen.  AVilliam  0.  Butler,  of  Kentucky,  received  the  unanimous  vote  of 
the  convention,  except  New  York,  which  did  not  vote. 

The  whig  national  convention  met  at  Pniladelphia  on  the  7th  of  June. 
John  C.  Morehead,  of  North  Carolina,  was  chosen  president  of  the  con- 
vention. Disturbed,  and  even  tumultuous  as  the  democratic  convention 
was  said  to  have  been,  it  was  probably  no  more  so  than  its  whig  rival. 
From  the  well  known  fact  that  the  mass  of  the  whig  party  was  in  favor 
of  the  Wilmot  proviso,  and  from  the  dissatisfaction  which  prevailed,  at 
the  unwillingness  of  Gen.  Taylor  to  commit  himself  to  whig  principles, 
as  well  as  from  the  belief  that  a  majority  of  the  delegates  elect  were  in 
favor  of  Mr.  Clay,  his  nomination  was  regarded  as  almost  certain.  On 
the  second  day,  a  secret  session  was  held  ;  after  which,  the  ballotings 
commenced.  Gen.  Taylor  received  on  the  first  ballot  1 1 1  votes ;  Mr. 
Clay,  97;  Mr.  Webster,  21;  Gen.  Scott,  46;  John  M'Lean,  2.  After 
another  unsuccessful  attempt,  farther  ballotting  was  deferred  till  the 
next  day.  A  proposition  made  by  the  Ohio  delegation,  to  exclude  all 
candidates  for  nomination  who  were  not  openly  avowed  whigs,  was,  after 
a  warm  debate,  ruled  out  of  order.  The  Louisiana  delegation  stated, 
professedly  by  authority  of  Gen.  Taylor  himself,  that  he  was  in  the  hands 
of  his  friends,  who  were  at  liberty  to  withdraw  his  name  if  they  thought 
proper,  though  he  did  not  consider  it  proper  to  do  so  himself.  He  also  con- 
sidered it  the  duty  of  his  friends  to  abide  the  decision  of  the  convention. 


878  THE    AMERICAN    SEi^TESMAN. 

The  balloting  was  resumed  the  next  day  (June  9th,)  Gen.  Taylor  re- 
ceiving 133  votes;  Mr.  Clay,  74;  Gen.  Scott,  53;  Mr.  Webster,  16; 
John  M.  Clayton,  1.  The  second  ballot  of  that  day,  resulted  in  a  choice ; 
Gen.  Taylor  having  171  votes;  Mr.  Clay,  30;  Gen.  Scott,  63;  Mr. 
Webster,  12. 

The  state  of  feeling  which  prevailed  in  the  convention  is  exhibited  in 
a  report  of  a  part  of  the  proceedings,  made  by  the  delegate  from  the  8th 
district  of  New  York,  Isaac  Piatt,  who  vouches  for  its  accuracy  : 

After  the  organization,  resolutions  having  been  offered  proposing  to 
commence  voting  for  candidates,  Mr.  Campbell,  of  Ohio,  moved  to  amend 
the  resolutions  by  adding,  that,  to  entitle  a  candidate  to  a  nomination, 
he  must  have  given  "  assurances  that  he  would  abide  by,  and  support 
the  nomination  ;  that  he  would  accept  it ;  that  he  would  consider  him- 
self the  candidate  of  the  whigs  ;  and  that  he  would  use  his  influence  to 
bring  into  practical  operation  the  principles  and  measures  of  the  whig 
party."  An  angry  excitement,  great  confusion,  and  numerous  calls  to 
order,  followed  ;  and  the  president  declared  the  resolution  out  of  order, 
from  which  decision  Mr.  C.  appealed,  and  the  question  of  appeal  was 
debated  by  himself  and  others. 

Mr.  Fuller,  of  New  York,  having  succeeded  in  getting  the  floor,  offered 
the  following  resolution,  which  had  been  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Piatt : 

"  Resolved^  That,  as  the  first  duty  of  the  representatives  of  the  whig 
party  is  to  preserve  the  principles  and  integrity  of  that  party,  the  claims 
of  no  candidate  for  nomination  can  be  considered  by  this  convention, 
anless  such  candidate  stands  pledged  to  support,  in  good  faith,  the 
nominees,  and  to  be  the  exponent  of  whig  principles." 

This  resolution  was  said  to  have  been  followed  by  a  greater  excite- 
nent  than  the  first.  Several  of  the  Taylor  men,  it  was  said,  "  became 
aearly  furious,  while  their  opponents  insisted  that  it  contained  nothing 
so  which  any  whigs  should  object."  This  resolution  also  was  declared 
rut  of  07'der.  An  appeal  was  made,  and,  amidst  great  confusion  and  ex- 
3itement,  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Allen,  of  Massachusetts,  after  the  nomination,  expressed  {lie 
opinion,  that,  by  this  nomination,  the  whig  party  had  been  that  day  dis- 
solved ;  still,  he  would  make  one  more  effort  to  apply  the  proper  party 
test,  and  presented  a  resolution,  a  part  of  which  only  was  read,  and  the 
reception  of  which  was  said  to  be  correctly  reported,  as  follows  : 

^'- Resolved^  That  the  whig  party,  through  its  representatives  here, 
igrees  to  abide  by  the  nomination  of  Gen.  Zachary  Taylor,  [cheers,]  on 
Jondition  that  he  will  accept  the  nomination  of  the  whig  party,  and 
idhere  to  its  great  fundamental  principles  :  No  extension  of  slave  terri- 
tory by  conquest  [hisses  and  cheers,  cries  of  order,  sit  down,  hear  him,] 


PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN   OF   1848.  879 

protection  to  American  industry,  [tremendous  cheers,  rapping,  and  cries 
of  order,  sit  down,  go  on,]  opposition  to  executive  patronage,  [cheers 
and  hisses.]  Mr.  Chairman  :  I — "  [Such  were  now  the  rapping,  the  cries 
of  order,  and  the  confusion,  as  to  prevent  Mr.  Allen  from  proceeding ; 
and,  without  being  permitted  to  resume, "the  president  declared  him  out 
of  order.] 

A  resolution  having  been  moved  declaring  the  unanimous  nomination 
of  Messrs.  Taylor  and  Fillmore,  another  excitement  was  produced  by  a 
motion  to  divide  the  resolution.  It  having  become  manifest  that  unan- 
imity was  not  to  be  secured,  Mr.  Tilden,  of  Ohio,  presented  the 
following  resolution,  upon  the  adoption  of  which,  he  said,  the  vote  of 
that  state  would  depend. 

"  Resolved^  That,  while  all  power  is  denied  to  congress  under  the 
constitution,  to  control,  or  in  any  way  interfere  with,  the  institution  of 
slavery  within  the  several  states  of  this  union,  it  nevertheless  has  the 
power,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  congress  to  prohibit  the  introduction  or 
existence  of  slavery  in  any  territory  now  possessed,  or  which  may  here- 
after be  acquired  by  the  United  States."  This  resolution,  it  was  said, 
created  a  more  angry  excitement  than  any  of  those  previously  offered, 
and  w^as  laid  on  the  table.  Probably  to  prevent  the  introduction  of 
more  resolutions,  it  was  agreed  that  the  resolution  of  concurrence  also 
should  be  laid  upon  the  table. 

As  a  last  desperate  movement,  Mr.  Hilliard,  of  Alabama,  introduced 
a  resolution  approving  the  doctrines  of  Gen.  Taylor's  letter  to  Captain 
Allison ;  but  this  also  being  opposed,  it  was  withdrawn,  and  the  conven- 
tion adjourned  without  passing  any  resolutions  having  reference  to  whig 
principles,  the  issues  before  the  country,  or  of  concurrence  in  the  nomi- 
nations. 

The  Allison  letter  here  referred  to,  contained  a  fuller  exposition  of 
his  political  opinions  than  any  other  of  his  published  letters,  and  ap- 
peared to  be  satisfactory  to  the  gri^at  body  of  the  whig  party.  We  sub- 
join that  part  of  the  letter  which  constitutes  his  platform  of  principles. 
Being  "  not  sufficiently  familiar  with  all  the  minute  details  of  political 
legislation  to  pledge  his  influence  to  carry  out  this  or  defeat  that  mea- 
sure," he  refrains  from  committing  himself  to  any  particular  measures, 
saying  :  "  One  who  cannot  be  trusted  without  pledges,  can  not  be  con- 
"fided  in  merely  on  account  of  them."  He  then  proceeds  to  respond  to 
the  inquiries  of  his  correspondent  thus  : 

"  First — I  reiterate  what  I  have  often  said — I  am  a  whig,  but  not  an 
ultra  whig.  If  elected  I  would  not  be  the  mere  president  of  a  party.  I 
would  endeavor  to  act  independent  of  party  domination.  I  should  feel 
bound  to  administer  the  government  untrammeled  by  party  schemes. 


880  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

"  Second — The  veto  power.  The  power  given  by  the  constitution  to 
the  executive  to  interpose  his  veto,  is  a  high  conservative  power ;  but 
in  my  opinion  should  never  be  exercised  except  in  cases  of  clear  viola- 
tion of  the  constitution,  or  manifest  haste  and  want  of  consideration  by 
congress.  Indeed,  I  have  thought  that  for  many  years  past,  the  known 
opinions  and  wishes  of  the  executive,  have  exercised  undue  and  injurious 
influence  upon  the  legislative  department  of  the  government ;  and  for 
this  cause  I  have  thought  our  system  was  in  danger  of  undergoing  a 
great  change  from  its  true  theory.  The  personal  opinions  of  the  indi- 
vidual who  may  happen  to  occupy  the  executive  chair,  ought  not  to  con- 
trol the  action  of  congress  upon  questions  of  domestic  policy,  nor  ought 
his  objections  to  be  interposed  where  questions  of  constitutional  power 
have  been  settled  by  the  various  departments  of  government  and 
acquiesced  in  by  the  people. 

"  Third — Upon  the  subject  of  the  tariff,  the  currency,  the  improve- 
ment of  our  great  highways,  rivers,  lakes,  and  harbors,  the  will  of  the 
people,  as  expressed  through  their  representatives  in  congress,  ought  to 
be  respected  and  carried  out  by  the  executive. 

"  Fourth — The  Mexican  war.  I  sincerely  rejoice  at  the  prospect  of 
peace.  My  life  has  been  devoted  to  arms,  yet  I  look  upon  war  at  all 
times  and  under  all  circumstances  as  a  national  calamity,  to  be  avoided 
if  compatible  with  national  honor.  The  principles  of  our  government 
as  well  as  its  true  policy,  are  opposed  to  the  subjugation  of  other  nations, 
and  the  embarrassment  of  other  countries  by  conquest.  In  the  language 
of  the  great  "Washington,  "  Why  should  we  quit  our  own  to  stand  on 
foreign  ground  ?"  In  the  Mexican  war,  our  national  honor  has  been 
vindicated,  amply  vindicated,  and  in  dictating  terms  of  peace  we  may 
well  afford  to  be  forbearing  and  even  magnanimous  to  our  foes." 

The  nomination  of  Gen.  Taylor  was  immediately  followed  by  expres- 
sions of  dissatisfaction  by  whigs  in  all  parts  of  the  north  ;  and  a  largo 
portion  of  the  party  declared  their  determination  not  to  support  the 
ticket.  So  extensive  was  the  dissent  to  the  nomination,  that,  but  for 
the  division  of  their  political  opponents,  there  could  have  been  little 
hope- of  electing  their  candidates.  Mass  meetings  were  soon  called  of 
the  disaffected  irrespective  of  party,  and  resolutions  adopted  declaring 
uncompromising  hostility  to  the  extension  of  slave  territory ;  and  a  long 
time  did  not  elapse  before  there  appeared  to  be  a  prevailing  determina- 
tion to  form  a  new  party,  based  upon  the  principle  of  the  Wilmot  pro- 
viso, which  purpose  was  soon  carried  into  effect. 

Meetings  also  of  the  disaffected  of  the  democratic  party  were  held,  at 
which  opposition  was  declared  against  the  nominees  of  the  Baltimore 
convention.     A  state  convention  of  the  Barnburners  was  held  at  Utica, 


PRESIDENTIAL    CAMPAIGN    OF   1848.  881 

New  York,  on  the  22d  and  23d  of  June,  the  Hon.  Samuel  Young,  pre- 
siding. A  letter  had  been  previously  addressed  to  Mr.  Van  Buren 
on  the  subject  of  the  presidency,  to  which  he  had  replied,  expressing  his 
adherence  to  the  determination  formed  in  1844,  not  to  be  again  a  candi- 
date for  the  presidency.  The  letter,  however,  was  in  favor  of  free 
territory  principles,  and  declared  that  he  could  not  vote  for  Gen.  Cass 
or  Gen.  Taylor.  The  convention,  notwithstanding,  nominated  Mr.  Van 
Buren  for  president,  and  Henry  Dodge,  senator  in  congress  from  "Wis- 
consin, for  vice-president.  The  latter  declined  the  nomination,  and 
supported  Gen.  Cass. 

On  the  9th  of  August  was  held  a  national  mass  convention  of  the 
friends  of  free  territory  at  BuiFalo.  Nearly  all  of  the  free,  and  three 
of  the  slave  states,  Delaware,  Maryland,  and  Virginia,  were  represented. 
After  the  temporary  organization  of  the  convention,  its  sentiments  were 
indicated  by  the  adoption,  by  acclamation,  of  three  resolutions  which 
were  read  by  the  Hon.  Preston  King,  of  New  York,  and  which  were  in 
substance  as  follows  :  First,  That  it  is  the  duty  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment to  abolish  slavery  wherever  it  has  the  constitutional  power  to  do 
so,  and  that  the  government  is  responsible  for  its  existence  in  such 
places.  Second,  That  the  states  within  which  slavery  exists,  are  alone 
responsible  for  the  continuance  or  existence  of  it  within  those  states,  and 
that  the  general  government  has  no  authority  over  slavery  within  the 
states.  Third,  That  the  true  and  safe  means  of  preventing  the  exist- 
ence of  slavery  in  territory  now  free,  is  by  congressional  action. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  was  chosen  president  of 
the  convention  ;  and  a  vice-president  from  each  of  the  states.  The 
committee  on  nominations  reported  in  favor  of  the  nomination  of  Martin 
Van  Buren  for  president ;  and  on  balloting  Mr.  Van  Buren  received 
244  votes,  and  John  P.  Hale  181.  Mr.  Hale  was  senator  in  congress 
from  New  Hampshire,  a  democrat,  who  had  become  separated  from  his 
party  by  his  adoption  of  the  "  free  soil "  principle.  He  was  at  this  time 
a  candidate  for  president,  having  been  nominated  by  the  anti-slavery 
party.  Charles  Francis  Adams  was  nominated  by  acclamation  for  vice- 
president.  Before  the  convention  proceeded  to  the  balloting,  a  letter 
from  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  read  to  the  convention,  approving  the  objects 
of  preventing  the  introduction  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  expressing 
the  wish  that  another  name  might  be  substituted  for  his  own,  which  had 
already  been  used  for  this  purpose.  Mr.  Hale  having  expressed  his 
willingness  to  submit  to  the  action  of  the  convention,  his  name  was  sub- 
sequently withdrawn  from  the  list  of  candidates. 

The  position  of  Gen.  Cass  in  relation  to  the  Wilmot  proviso,  was 
defined  in  a  letter  to  a  Mr.  Nicholson  of  Tennessee.    He  had  been  in  favor 

56 


882  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  applying  that  restrictive  principle  to  the  territory  of  the  United 
States ;  but  he  had  receded  from  that  position.  He  said  in  the  letter 
alluded  to  :  "  The  Wilmot  proviso  has  been  before  the  country  some 
time.  It  has  been  repeatedly  discussed  in  congress,  and  by  the  public 
press. 

"  I  am  strongly  impressed  with  the  opinion  that  a  change  has  been 
going  on  in  the  public  mind  upon  this  subject — in  my  own  as  well  as 
others ;  and  that  doubts  are  resolving  themselves  into  conviction,  that 
the  principles  it  involves  should  be  kept  out  of  the  legislatures,  and  left 
to  the  people  of  the  confederacy  in  their  respective  local  gorernments. 

"  Briefly,  then,  I  am  opposed  to  the  exercise  of  any  jurisdiction  by 
congress,  over  this  matter ;  and  I  am  in  favor  of  leaving  to  the  people 
of  any  territory  which  may  be  hereafter  acquired,  the  right  to  regulate 
it  for  themselves  under  the  general  principles  of  the  constitution." 

Gen.  Taylor  was  addressed,  immediatel}'-  after  his  nomination,  by  the 
president  of  the  convention,  informing  him  of  his  nomination;,  but  for 
reasons  unknown,  the  letter  of  acceptance  was  long  delayed.  He  having 
pertinaciously  refused  to  be  considered  a  party  candidate,  and  having 
even  stated,  in  some  of  his  letters,  that  he  would  as  willingly  receive 
a  nomination  from  the  democratic  or  native  American  party  as  from  the 
whigs,  the  public  waited  impatiently  to  learn  whether  he  would  accept 
as  a  whig.  Judging,  perhaps,  from  the  representations  of  the  Louis- 
iana delegation  in  the  convention,  it  was  hoped,  and  some  of  his  friends 
confidently  predicted,  that  he  would  so  accept  the  nomination.  The  let- 
ter which  at  length  appeared,  under  date  of  July  15th,  did  not  fully 
meet  the  expectations  of  those  who  considered  it  his  duty  to  accept  as  a 
whig  candidate.     He  said  : 

"  Looking  to  the  composition  of  the  convention,  and  its  numbers  and 
patriotic  constituents,  I  feel  duly  grateful  for  the  honor  bestowed  upon 
me,  for  the  distinguished  confidence  implied  in  my  nomination  to  the 
highest  office  in  the  gift  of  the  American  people.  I  cordially  accept 
that  nomination,  but  with  sincere  distrust  of  my  fitness  to  fulfill  the 
duties  of  an  office  which  demands  for  its  exercise  the  most  exalted  abili- 
ties and  patriotism,  and  which  has  been  rendered  illustrious  by  the  great- 
est names  in  our  history." 

Besides  his  answers  to  letters  from  other  parties,  he  had  also  responded ' 
to  a  letter  from  a  meeting  of  all  parties,  or,  as  it  may  be  termed,  a  "  no- 
party"  meeting  at  Baltimore  by  which  he  had  been  nominated,  in  which 
letter  he  said : 

"  The  political  sentiments  embraced  in  the  preamble  and  resolutions 
adopted  at  that  meeting,  I  rejoice  to  say,  meet  my  cordial  approval  and 
assent.  No  movements  in  any  part  of  the  country,  having  the  object  to 
ofi'er  testimonials  of  honor  and  respect  towards  myself,  or  to  advocate  my 


ELECTION    OF    GEN.    TAYLOR.  883 

election  to  the  presidency,  have  caused  in  me  more  lively  pleasure,  or 
demand  more  my  gratitude."  And  having  made  the  nomination  "  on 
their  own  responsibility,  free  from  party  action,  and  the  exaction  of 
pledges  from  myself,  I  shall  serve  them  strictly  as  a  constitutional,  and 
not  as  a  party  president." 

Gen.  Taylor  continued,  after  his  nomination,  to  write  letters  of  the 
same  character  as  those  which  he  had  written  before,  disclaiming  that  he 
was  a  party  candidate.  To  a  friend  in  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  he 
wrote,  that  he  had  accepted  the  nomination  of  the  Philadelphia  conven- 
tion and  of  many  primary  assemblages,  irrespective  of  party,  "  and  would 
have  accepted  the  nomination  of  the  Baltimore  convention,  had  it  been 
tendered  on  the  same  terms." 

At  Charleston,  he  was  nominated  by  a  meeting  of  the  democrats,  who 
apprehended  that  G-en.  Cass,  being  a  northern  man,  was  not  reliable  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  which  the  meeting  resolved  to  be  "  paramount  to 
all  questions."  A  copy  of  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  was  sent 
him,  together  with  an  address,  in  which  it  was  stated :  "  We  know 
that,  in  this  great  parapaount  and  leading  question  of  the  rights  of  the 
south,  he  is  of  us,  he  is  with  us,  and  he  is  for  us;"  and  also 
a  letter  formally  apprising  him  of  the  nomination.  He  acknowledged 
the  receipt  of  the  letter  "  with  emotions  of  profound  gratitude,"  and 
added  :  "  Concluding  that  this  nomination,  like  all  others  which  I  have 
had  the  honor  of  receiving  from  assemblages  of  my  fellow-citizens  in 
various  parts  of  the  union,  has  been  generously  oflfered,  without  pledges 
and  conditions,  it  is  thankfully  accepted ;"  &c. 

The  appearance  of  these  letters  simultaneously  with  the  defective 
acceptance  of  the  whig  nomination,  and  the  additional  fact  that  he  had 
accepted  the  Charleston  nomination,  knowing  that  his  name  was  on  the 
same  ticket  with  that  of  the  democratic  candidate  for  vice-president, 
thus  giving  countenance  to  a  part  of  the  democratic  ticket,  excited 
among  the  whigs  feelings  of  chagrin  and  indignation.  At  Albany,  on 
the  arrival  of  the  news  of  the  general's  acceptance  of  the  Charleston 
democratic  slavery  nomination,  a  call  was  issued  for  a  meeting  of  the 
whigs  to  take  the  subject  into  consideration.  A  large  and  enthusiastic 
meeting  was  held,  at  which  the  leading  whigs  of  the  city  declared  their 
determination  to  abandon  the  support  of  Gen.  Taylor.  The  meeting, 
which  took  place  on  Saturday  evening,  was  adjourned  till  Monday  even- 
ing, when,  upon  more  mature  consideration,  the  purpose  expressed  at  the 
previous  meeting  was  relinquished.  The  murmurs  of  dissatisfaction 
from  the  mass  of  the  disaffected  whigs  soon  ceased ;  and  before  the 
election,  most  of  the  dissenters  had  returned  to  their  party  allegiance. 

Of  the  presidential  electors  chosen  at  the  election  in  November,  163 
gave  their  votes  for  Taylor  and  Fillmore;  and  127  for  Cass  and  Butler- 


884  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN 


CHAPTER  LXXI. 

BILLS    FOR    CALIFORNIA    AND    OTHER    TERRITORIAL    GOVERNMENTS, 

One  of  the  exciting  topics  of  the  session  of  1847-48,  was  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  territorial  government  for  Oregon.  A  bill  for  this  pur- 
pose was  reported  early  in  the  session,  but  was  not  disposed  of  until 
just  at  its  close.  The  question  of  slavery,  including  the  Wilmot  pro- 
viso and  the  Missouri  compromise,  furnished  the  matter  for  this  pro- 
tracted debate.  The  question  of  the  power  of  congress  to  legislate  on 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  was  elaborately  discussed  in 
the  senate,  by  Mr.  Dix,  of  New  York,  and  Mr.  Calhoun ;  the  former 
most  ably  maintaining  the  affirmative  of  the  proposition,  and  the  latter 
denying  it. 

Mr.  Dix,  although  he  made  a  luminous  and  powerful  argument  in 
favor  of  the  power  in  question,  stated  certain  positions  which  he  thought 
constituted  a  proper  basis  for  the  settlement  of  the  question  ;  positions, 
the  correctness  of  which  a  majority  of  the  friends  of  free  territory,  it  is 
believed,  do  not  concede.  They  are  these  :  1.  All  external  interference 
with  slavery  in  the  states  is  a  violation  of  the  compromises  of  the  con- 
stitution, and  dangerous  to  the  harmony  and  perpetuity  of  the  federal 
union.  2.  Territory  acquired  by  the  United  States,  should,  in  re- 
spect to  slavery,  be  received  as  it  is  found.  If  slavery  exists  therein 
at  the  time  of  the  acquisition,  it  should  be  left  to  remain  undisturbed 
by  congress.  If  it  does  not  exist  therein  at  the  time  of  the  acquisition, 
its  introduction  ought  to  be  prohibited  while  the  territory  continues  to 
be  governed  as  such.  3.  All  legislation  by  congress  in  respect  to 
slavery  in  the  territory,  ceases  to  be  operative  when  the  inhabitants  are 
permitted  to  form  a  state  government;  and  the  admission  of  a  state  into 
the  union  carries  with  it,  by  force  of  the  sovereignty  such  admission 
confers,  the  right  to  dispose  of  the  whole  question  of  slavery  at  its  dis- 
cretion, without  external  interference. 

If  by  the  "  external  interference  "  referred  to  in  the  first  position,  is 
meant  external  legislative  interference  with  slavery  in  the  states,  the 
proposition  will  not  be  disputed  by  any  one.  But  if  this  interference  is 
intended  to  include  all  discussion  and  agitation  of  the  question  of 
slavery,  and  all  attempts,  by  moral  means,  to  effect  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  states,  the  position  will  be  extensively  controverted,' 
The  assertion  in  the  second  position,  that  congress,  although  it  has 


CALHOUN    ON    SLAVERY.  885 

power  to  remove  a  serious  evil,  ought  to  leave  it  as  it  isfotmd,  is  equally 
far  from  receiving  general  assent.  As  to  the  third  proposition,  if  it 
goes  so  far  as  to  deny  the  power  of  congress  to  refuse  the  admission  of 
a  state  on  the  ground  that  its  constitution  does  not  prohibit  slavery, 
this  doctrine  also,  it  is  believed,  is  not  in  accordance  with  public  sen- 
timent in  the  free  states.  The  right  of  a  state,  after  its  admission,  to 
establish  slavery,  is  not  disputed. 

Mr.  Calhoun  denied  the  existence  of  the  power  of  congress  to  exclude 
the  south  from  a  free  admission  into  the  territories  with  its  slaves.  He 
denied  what  had  been  by  many  assumed,  that  congress  had  an  absolute 
right  to  govern  the  territories.  The  clause  of  the  constitution  which 
gives  "  power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations 
respecting  the  territory  and  other  property  belonging  to  the  United 
States,"  did  not,  he  said,  convey  such  a  right :  "  it  conferred  no  gov- 
ernmental power  whatever;  no,  not  a  particle."  It  only  referred  to 
territory  as  public  lands — as  property — and  gave  to  congress  the  right 
to  dispose  of  it  as  such,  but  not  to  exercise  over  it  the  power  of  govern- 
ment. Mr.  Calhoun  thought  the  best  method  of  settling  the  slavery 
question  was  by  non-action — by  leaving  the  territories  free  and  open  to 
the  emigration  of  all  the  world,  and  when  they  became  states,  to  permit 
them  to  adopt  whatever  constitution  they  pleased. 

Mr.  Calhoun  considered  the  interference  on  the  subject  dangerous  to 
the  union.  If  the  union  and  our  system  of  government  were  ever  doomed 
to  perish,  the  historian  who  should  record  the  events  ending  in  so  calami- 
tous a  result,  would  devote  his  first  chapter  to  the  ordinance  of  1787  ; 
his  next  to  the  Missouri  compromise ;  and  the  next  to  the  present 
agitation.  Whether  there  would  be  another  beyond,  he  knew  not.  He 
reviewed  and  controverted  the  doctrines  of  the  declaration  of  independ- 
ence. The  proposition  that  "  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal  "  he 
called  a  "  hypothetical  truism."  Literally,  there  was  not  a  word  of 
truth  in  it.  This  assertion  he  supported  with  the  singular  argument, 
that  "men  are  not  born  free.  Infants  are  born.  They  grow  to  be 
men.  They  were  not  born  free.  While  infants,  they  are  incapable  of 
freedom  ;  they  are  subject  to  their  parents."  Nor  was  it  less  false  that 
they  are  born  "  equal."  But  in  the  declaration  of  independence  the 
word  "  free  "  did  not  occur.  Still  the  expression  was  erroneous.  "  All 
men  are  not  created.  Only  two,  a  man  and  a  woman,  were  created,  and 
one  of  these  was  pronounced  subordinate  to  the  other.  All  others  have 
come  into  the  world  by  being  born,  and  in  no  sense,  as  I  have  shown, 
either  free  or  equal."  This  expression,  Mr.  C.  said,  had  been  inserted 
in  the  declaration  without  any  necessity.  It  made  no  necessary  part 
of  our  justification  in  separating  ourselves  from  the  parent  country. 


886  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Nor  had  it  any  weight  in  constructing  the  governments  which  were  to 
be  substituted  in  the  place  of  the  colonial.  They  were  formed  from  the 
old  materials,  and  on  practical  and  well  established  principles,  borrowed, 
for  the  most  part,  from  our  own  experience,  and  that  of  the  country 
from  which  we  sprang. 

Mr.  Calhoun  argued,  that,  instead  of  liberty  and  equality  being  born 
with  men,  and  instead  of  all  men  and  all  classes  being  entitled  to  them, 
they  wiere  high  prizes  to  be  won ;  they  were  rewards  bestowed  on  men- 
tal and  moral  development.  The  error  which  he  was  combating  had 
done  more  to  retard  the  cause  of  liberty  and  civilization,  and  was  doing 
more  at  present,  than  all  other  causes  combined.  It  was  the  leading 
cause  which  had  placed  Europe  in  its  present  state  of  anarchy,  and 
which  stood  in  the  way  of  reconstructing  good  governments.  He  con- 
cluded as  follows : 

"  Nor  are  we  exempt  from  its  disorganizing  effects.  We  now  begin 
to  experience  the  danger  of  admitting  so  great  an  error  to  have  a  place 
in  the  declaration  of  our  independence.  For  a  long  time  it  lay  dor- 
mant 5  but  in  process  of  time  it  began  to  germinate,  and  produce  its 
poisonous  fruits.  It  had  strong  hold  on  the  mind  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  the 
author  of  that  document,  which  caused  him  to  take  an  utterly  false 
view  of  the  subordinate  relation  of  the  black  to  the  white  race  in  the 
south ;  and  to  hold,  in  consequence,  that  the  latter,  though  utterly  un- 
qualified to  possess  liberty,  were  as  fully  entitled  to  both  liberty  and 
equality  as  the  former ;  and  that  to  deprive  them  of  it  was  unjust  and 
immoral.  To  this  error,  his  proposition  to  exclude  slavery  from  the 
territory  north-west  of  the  Ohio  may  be  traced,  and  to  that  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787,  and  through  it  the  deep  and  dangerous  agitation  which 
now  threatens  to  engulph,  and  will  certainly  engulph,  if  not  speedily 
settled,  our  political  institutions,  and  involve  the  country  in  countless 
woes.'' 

On  the  6th  of  July,  the  Oregon  bill  being  still  pending,  the  president 
transmitted  to  congress  a  message,  with  a  copy  of  the  ratified  treaty.  On 
the  11th,  Mr.  Clayton,  in  the  senate,  moved  that  the  Oregon  bill  and 
amendment  be  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  eight,  four  from  the 
north,  and  four  from  the  south,  equally  divided  also  as  to  their  party 
politics.  A  modification  being  suggested  by  Mr.  Bright,  of  Indiana, 
so  as  to  include  so  much  of  the  president's  message  as  related  to  the 
new  territory  of  California,  New  Mexico,  &c.,  recently  acquired  by 
treaty  with  Mexico,  and  referred  to  the  select  committee  of  eight.  The 
proposition  having  been  accepted  by  Mr.  Clayton,  it  was  adopted,  31  to 
14.  On  the  18th,  Mr.  Clayton,  from  the  select  committee,  reported  a 
bill  to  establish  territorial  governments  in  New  Mexico  and  California. 
The  following  is  a  synopsis  of  the  report : 


TERRITORIAL    GOVERNMENT    BILLS.  887 

The  committee  recommended  the  passage  of  the  Oregon  bill,  nearly 
as  it  came  from  the  house,  and  without  the  senate's  proposed  amend- 
ments, simply  amending  it  so  as  to  hold  the  existing  territorial  laws  of 
Oregon  in  force,  until  after  the  new  government  had  time  to  act,  and 
to  reenact  or  repeal  them.  Oregon  was  to  have  a  legislative  assembly 
of  two  houses,  elected  by  the  people. 

New  Mexico  and  California  were  to  be  organized  into  separate  terri- 
tories, with  governors,  judges,  secretaries,  district  attorneys,  and  mar- 
shals, appointed  by  the  president  and  senate  of  the  United  States;  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  to  be  extended  over  them  : 
the  governors  and  judges  in  California  and  New  Mexico  to  constitute  a 
legislative  council,  and  to  be  authorized  to  pass  laws,  subject  to  the  re- 
vision or  rejection  of  congress ;  but  such  council  not  to  legislate  re- 
specting slavery,  the  establishment  of  religion,  the  pledging  of  the  faith 
of  the  territory,  nor  to  dispose  of  the  soil.  If  any  question  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery  should  arise,  it  was  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  ju- 
diciary of  the  United  States.  Courts  were  to  be  established,  with  the 
right  to  appeal  to  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States. 

Here  was  a  compromise  bill,  not  to  divide  free  and  slave  territory 
upon  a  given  line,  but  proposing  equal  advantages  to  slavery.  A  com- 
promise line  had  been  proposed  and  rejected  in  the  committee  of  eight ; 
and  the  plan  reported  was  the  only  one  that  could  be  devised,  whicii 
would  secure  any  approach  to  unanimity.  By  the  opponents  of  slavery, 
the  bill  was  considered  as  almost  certain  to  secure  the  preoccupation  of 
the  territory  to  slavery.  The  taking  of  the  power  of  legislating  for  the 
territory  out  of  the  hands  of  the  two  hundred  and  ninety  representa- 
tives of  the  nation,  and  conferring  it  upon  some  eight  or  ten  persons 
appointed  by  a  slave-holding  president,  and  forbidden  to  pass  any  law 
respecting  slavery,  thus  leaving  the  country  open  to  slaveholders ;  sub- 
jecting questions  of  slavery  to  the  decision  of  the  local  judges,  also  ap- 
pointed by  the  president ;  appeals  from  their  decision  to  be  taken  to 
the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States — a  majority  of  the  judges  being 
slaveholders  : — all  this  was  regarded  as  tantamount  to  the  establishment 
of  slavery  in  those  vast  territories. 

By  the  provisional  government  then  existing  in  Oregon,  slavery  was 
prohibited.  The  present  bill  provided,  that,  if  the  territorial  legislature 
of  Oregon  should  not  reafl&rm  the  law  of  the  provisional  government 
prohibiting  slavery,  within  three  months  after  the  assembling  of  the 
first  territorial  legislature,  that  law  was  to  be  null  and  void.  By 
another  provision  of  the  bill,  all  bills  passed  by  the  territorial  legisla- 
ture were  required  to  be  submitted  to  congress,  and,  if  not  approved, 
were  to  be  void.     As  it  was  not  probable  that  both  houses  of  congress 


888  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

would  at  any  time  be  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  slavery  in  the  ter- 
ritories, this  provision  was  considered  as  in  effect  removing  the  restric- 
tion upon  slavery  in  that  territory.  This  bill,  with  some  amendments, 
one  of  which  allowed  an  appeal  from  a  decision  of  the  state  court  to  the 
supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  in  any  case  involving  the  question 
of  personal  freedom,  passed  the  senate,  on  the  morning  of  the  27th  of 
July,  after  a  continuous  session  of  twenty-one  hours.  The  vote  was, 
ayes,  33  ;  noes,  22.  In  the  house,  the  bill  was  taken  up  the  next  day, 
and,  by  a  vote  of  112  to  97,  laid  on  the  table.  The  house  then,  in 
committee  of  the  whole,  resumed  the  consideration  of  their  own  bill  pro- 
viding a  government  for  Oregon,  which  passed  that  body  on  the  2d  of 
August,  129  to  71.  It  contained  a  provision  for  extending  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787  over  the  territory  ;  and  another  to  abolish  the  veto  power 
of  the  governor.  In  the  senate,  it  was  amended  so  as  to  restore  this 
power  to  the  governor.  The  section  also  prohibiting  slavery,  was 
amended,  by  inserting,  "  Inasmuch  as  the  said  territory  is  north  of  the 
parallel  of  36  degrees  and  30  minutes  of  north  latitude,  usually  known 
as  the  Missouri  compromise."  As  the  whole  territory  of  Oregon  lies 
north  of  the  42d  degree,  the  object  of  this  amendment  was  to  make  the 
record  appear  that  slavery  was  prohibited  in  that  territory,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  compromise,  in  order  to  remove  all  ground  for  any  future 
pretext  to  carry  the  anti-slavery  proviso  south  of  the  compromise  line. 

These  amendments  of  the  senate  were  all  negatived  in  the  house, 
ayes,  82 ;  noes,  121  ;  and  the  bill  returned  to  the  senate,  where,  after  a 
protracted  debate,  the  question  on  a  motion  to  recede  from  the  amend- 
ment by  which  the  Missouri  compromise  had  been  inserted,  was  taken, 
and  carried  in  the  affirmative,  29  to  25.  The  bill  was  then  passed  by 
the  same  vote,  Sunday  morning,  the  1 3th  of  August.  The  session  closing 
the  next  day,  no  bill  was  passed  for  the  government  of  the  new  terri- 
tories. It  was  supposed,  and  not  altogether  without  reason,  that  the 
'•  free  soil"  movement  at  the  north  contributed,  in  no  small  degree,  to 
effect  the  passage  of  the  Oregon  bill. 

At  the  next  session  (1848-49,)  another  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made 
to  provide  for  the  government  of  the  newly  acquired  territory.  A  bill  was 
introduced  into  the  senate,  December  11,  1848,  by  Mr.  Douglass,  of 
Illinois,  for  the  admission  of  California  as  a  state,  to  include  all  the  ter- 
ritory acquired  by  treaty  from  Mexico.  The  state  was  to  come  into  the 
union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  other  states.  The  laws  of  the  United 
States  were  to  be  extended  over  the  new  state,  so  far  as  they  were  not 
locally  inapplicable.  Congress  reserved  the  right  to  form  and  admit  new 
states  from  that  portion  of  the  territory  lying  east  of  the  Sierra  Nevada, 
or  California  mountains.     The  bill  also  provided  for  the  establishment 


TERRITORIAL    GOVERNMENT    BILLS.  889 

of  courts ;  and  gave  to   the   state,  until  the  next  apportionment,  two 
representatives  in  congress. 

Mr.  Douglas  said  he  was  ready  to  support  the  bill  of  Mr.  Clayton, 
which  had  been  defeated  at  the  last  session,  and  still  more  so  to  support 
a  bill  carrying  out  the  Missouri  compromise  as  proposed  by  himself. 
But  if  this  could  not  be  had,  he  was  in  favor  of  giving  law  to  the  people 
of  that  country  by  bringing  them  at  once  into  the  union.  Amendments 
were  proposed  to  this  bill,  one  of  which,  (by  Mr.  Davis,  of  Mississippi,) 
was  to  annex  New  Mexico  to  Texas,  with  the  view  of  immediately  legal- 
izing slavery  in  that  part  of  the  acquired  territory.  This  proposition 
was  prompted,  probably,  by  the  movement  of  the  people  in  New  Mexico. 
A  convention  of  the  people  had  been  held  in  October,  1848,  and  a  peti- 
tion adopted,  remonstrating  against  being  annexed  to  Texas,  and  praying 
to  be  protected  against  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  their  territory. 
This  petition  had  been  presented  by  Mr.  Benton  before  the  introduction 
of  the  bill  of  Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  Benton  moved  the  printing  of  the  peti- 
tion. Mr.  Calhoun  said  he  would  not  object  to  the  printing,  but  he  de- 
clared the  petition  to  be  a  disrespectful  and  an  insolent  one.  These  people 
had  been  conquered  by  the  very  men  whom  they  wished  to  exclude  from 
that  territory ;  and  this  they  knew.  He  claimed  it  as  a  constitutional 
right  to  go  there  with  his  property ;  and  he  protested  against  being  gov- 
erned by  the  consideration  presented  under  such  circumstances  as  that 
under  which  this  petition  had  been  presented.  Mr.  Benton  said  that 
himself  and  Mr.  Clayton  had  both  been  charged  with  the  presentation 
of  the  petition ;  and  he  thought  they  were  called  upon  to  defend  those 
who  had  sent  so  respectful  a  petition  against  the  charge  of  insolence. 
Mr.  Rusk,  of  Texas,  claimed,  as  belonging  to  Texas,  all  that  part  of 
New  Mexico  lying  east  of  the  Bio  Grande  :  and  he  protested  against 
establishing  over  it  a  distinct  and  separate  government.  Mr.  Benton's 
motion  to  print  the  petition  was  warmly  opposed ;  but  it  was  finally  car- 
ried, 33  to  14;  the  noes  being  all  from  southern  senators. 

The  bill  of  Mr.  Douglas  was  silent  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  also 
that  of  boundary,  leaving  an  indefinite  portion  of  New  Mexico  subject  to 
the  claims  of  Texas,  the  validity  and  extent  of  which  were  to  be  left  to 
the  decision  of  the  supreme  court.  The  debate  was  continued  till  near 
the  close  of  the  session,  without  efi'ecting  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

In  the  house,  on  the  20th  of  December,  1848,  Mr.  Smith,  of  Indiana, 
reported  a  bill  to  establish  the  territorial  government  of  Upper  California. 
This  bill  provided  a  territorial  government  of  the  highest  class :  A  gov- 
ernor, appointed  by  the  president  and  senate ;  a  legislature,  composed 
of  a  council  and  house  of  representatives ;  and  the  necessary  courts  of 
justice.     It  embraced  the  anti-slavery  ordinance  of  1787.     The  bill  was 


890  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

under  debate  till  within  a  few  days  of  the  close  of  the  session.  Several 
motions  had  been  made  to  strike  out  the  restrictive  clause,  but  without 
success. 

On  the  27th  of  February,  the  question  came  up  on  a  substitute  pre- 
viously oflfered  by  Mr.  Preston,  of  Virginia,  proposing  to  include  all  the 
territory  ceded  by  Mexico^  and  to  erect  the  same  into  a  state.  Mr.  Col- 
lins moved  as  an  amendment  the  anti-slavery  proviso,  which  was  adopted, 
91  to  87.  Mr.  Preston  being  asked  whether  the  bill  embraced  the 
country  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande,  declined  making  any 
explanations.  Mr.  Greeley,  of  New  York,  moved  an  additional  section, 
providing  that  the  state  to  be  formed  should  include  the  territory  east 
of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  within  certain  described  boundaries,  (being  the 
territory  of  New  Mexico.) 

Mr.  Kaufman,  of  Texas,  inquired  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York, 
whether  he  wanted  to  steal  land  enough  from  Texas  for  his  Fourierite  bill 
to  operate  upon — [referring  to  a  bill  introduced  by  Mr.  Greeley,  proposing 
to  give,  on  certain  conditions,  limited  quantities  of  the  public  lands  to 
actual  settlers  and  cultivators.]  Mr.  Greeley  replied,  that  it  did  not 
become  the  representative  from  Texas  to  talk  about  land-stealing ;  and 
proceeded  to  advocate  his  amendment.  The  bill,  by  leaving  the  boun- 
dary undefined,  virtually  surrendered  a  large  part  of  New  Mexico  to  the 
dominion  of  Texas. 

The  object  of  Mr.  Greeley's  proposition  was  to  protect  the  people  of 
New  Mexico,  who  had  protested  against  being  subjected  to  the  rule  of 
Texas.  If  it  should  form  a  part  of  Texas,  it  would  be  certain  to  fall 
under  the  dominion  of  slavery ;  if  attached  to  the  proposed  state,  there 
was  at  least  a  strong  probability  that  it  would  continue  free  territory. 
The  amendment  was  rejected  :  ayes,  59  ;  noes,  63. 

Other  amendments  were  offered  and  withdrawn;  and  the  bill  was 
passed,  with  the  proviso  clause,  126  to  87.  The  bill  was  sent  to  the 
senate,  and  immediately  referred  to  the  committee  on  territories.  Mr, 
Douglas,  the  chairman,  on  the  last  day  of  the  session,  stated  that  he  had 
been  unable  to  get  a  meeting  of  the  committee  to  consider  this  bill,  and 
moved  that  the  committee  be  discharged  from  its  farther  consideration, 
which  was  done.  Mr.  Douglas  then  endeavored  to  bring  the  house  to 
act  upon  the  subject  without  a  report  from  the  committee ;  there  being 
a  pressing  necessity  for  giving  to  the  people  of  California  some  other 
government  than  that  to  which  they  were  now  subject.  He  therefore 
made  a  motion  to  postpone  prior  orders  to  take  up  the  California  bill ,' 
but  the  motion  was  negatived. 

After  this,  the  question  of  territorial  government  came  up  again  in 
the  shape  of  an  amendment  to  the  civil  and  diplomatic  appropriation  bill. 


DEPARTMENT    OP   THE    INTERIOR.  891 

The  proposition  was  to  authorize  the  president  to  hold  possession  of  the 
acquired  territory,  and  to  employ,  for  this  purpose,  if  necessary,  a  part  of 
the  army  and  navy.  And,  until  congress  should  have  an  opportunity,  at 
the  next  session,  of  providing  for  the  government  of  the  territory,  the 
existing  (that  is,  Mexican)  laws  should  be  observed,  the  civil  and  judi- 
cial authorities  heretofore  exercised,  to  be  vested  in  persons  appointed 
by  the  president.  No  martial  law  was  to  be  declared,  nor  military  courts 
established,  except  ordinary  courts  martial  for  the  trial  of  persons 
belonging  to  the  army  or  navy. 

This  amendment  came  to  the  senate  from  the  house,  being  an  amend- 
ment there  made  to  an  amendment  to  the  appropriation  bill  above  men- 
tioned, which  had  been  sent  to  the  house  for  concurrence.  When  the 
hour  of  twelve  arrived,  several  senators,  considering  the  session  as 
having  expired,  declined  participating  farther  in  the  proceedings.  The 
debate,  however,  proceeded  for  several  hours,  when  fears  were  entertained 
that  the  whole  appropriation  would  be  lost  if  the  discussion  were  not 
speedily  closed.  Mr.  Webster,  disposed  to  disencumber  the  bill  from 
this  California  amendment,  said  he  was  willing  to  withdraw  his  motion 
to  concur  in  the  house  amendment,  if  gentlemen  would  then  move  to 
recede  from  the  senate's  own  amendment,  and  let  the  bill  pass  as  a  mere 
appropriation  bill. 

The  question  then  arose,  whether  it  was  not  necessary  first  to  vote 
upon  the  motion  to  concur — which  was  debated  for  some  time.  Mr. 
Douglas  contended  that  the  motion  to  concur  took  the  precedence,  and 
renewed  that  motion.  It  was  decided,  however,  that  the  motion  to 
recede  had  precedence,  and  that  if  it  prevailed,  the  bill  would  be  freed 
from  all  amendments.  The  question  on  receding  was  then  taken,  and 
carried,  38  to  7.  So  the  appropriation  bill  was  passed ;  but  no  govern- 
ment was  provided  for  California. 

At  this  session  was  established  a  new  executive  department,  styled 
the  "Department  of  the  Interior,"  or  home  department,  the  head  officer 
of  which,  called  secretary  of  the  interior,  is  also  a  member  of  the  cabi- 
net. The  increase  of  business  of  the  other  departments  had  rendered 
the  establishment  of  a  new  department  necessary.  To  this  new  officer 
were  assigned  the  supervision  of  the  office  of  commissioner  of  patents, 
formerly  exercised  by  the  secretary  of  state;  certain  duties  in  relation 
to  the  general  land-office,  formerly  performed  by  the  secretary  of  the 
treasury ;  supervisory  powers  relating  to  the  acts  of  the  commissioner 
of  Indian  afi'airs,  previously  exercised  by  the  secretary  of  war ;  also 
similar  powers  in  relation  to  the  acts  of  commissioner  of  pensions,  for- 
merly exercised  by  the  secretaries  of  war  and  the  navy.  Certain  other 
duties  of  the  heads  of  the  treasury  and  state  departments  were  devolved 
upon  this  new  department. 


892  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


CHAPTER  LXII. 


^AUGURATION    OF    PRESIDENT    TAYLOR. CONTEST     FOR     THE     CHOICE   OF 

SPEAKER. THE    COMPROMISE  OF  1850. 

General  ZachapuY  Taylor  was  inaugurated  as  president  of  the 
United  States,  the  5th  of  March,  1849,  (the  4th  happening  that  year  on 
Sunday.)  The  oath  of  office  having  been  administered  by  Chief  Justice 
Taney,  the  president  delivered  his  inaugural  address  in  the  presence  of 
a  dense  crowd  of  spectators.  The  address  was  a  brief  one,  and,  as 
regards  the  sentiments  it  expressed,  considered  unobjectionable.  It 
partook  much  of  the  character  of  the  numerous  letters  he  had  written 
previously  to  his  election.  He  promised  to  make  the  constitution  his 
guide  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  ;  looking  for  the  interpretation  of 
that  instrument  to  the  decisions  of  the  judicial  tribunals  established  by 
its  authority,  and  following  the  example  of  the  early  presidents,  especially 
of  him  who  was  entitled  "  the  Father  of  his  country."  He  repeated 
the  assurance  so  frequently  expressed  before,  that  his  administration 
''  would  be  devoted  to  the  welfare  of  the  whole  country,  and  not  to  the 
support  of  any  particular  section,  or  merely  local  interest."  In  the 
exercise  of  the  appointing  power,  he  would  "  make  honesty,  capacity, 
?.nd  fidelity  indispensable  prerequisites  to  the  disposal  of  office."  He 
would  also  favor  measures  "  to  secure  encouragement  and  protection 
to  the  great  interests  of  agriculture,  commerce  and  manufactures,  to 
improve  our  rivers  and  harbors,  to  provide  for  the  speedy  extinguish- 
ment of  the  public  debt,  to  enforce  a  strict  accountability  on  the  part 
of  all  officers  of  the  government,  and  the  utmost  economy  in  all  public 
expenditures."  He  also  indicated  a  purpose  not  to  endeavor  to  exert 
any  personal  influence  in  controlling  the  action  of  congress. 

President  Taylor  selected  for  his  cabinet  officers  the  following  :  John 
M.  Clayton,  of  Delaware,  secretary  of  state ;  "William  M.  Meredith,  of 
Pennsylvania,  secretary  of  the  treasury  ;  Thomas  Ewing,  of  Ohio,  secre- 
tary of  the  interior  ;  George  W.  Crawford,  of  Georgia,  secretary  of  war ; 
William  B.  Preston,  of  Virginia,  secretary  of  the  navy;  Jacob  Colla- 
mer,  of  Vermont,  postmaster-general ;  Reverdy  Johnson,  of  Maryland, 
attorney-general. 

The  31st  congress  commenced  its  1st  session  December  3d,  1849,  and 
continued  the  same  until  the  30th  of  September,  1850,  a  period  of 
nearly  ten  months.  Much  time  was  spent  at  the  commencement  in 
unsuccessful  balloting  for  speaker.      The  contest  was  chiefly  between 


CONTEST  FOR  THE  CHOICE  OF  SPEAKER.  893 

Robert  C.  Winthrop,  whig,  speaker  of  the  late  congress,  and  Howell 
Cobb,  of  Georgia,  democrat.  Each  received,  for  several  days,  on  dif- 
ferent ballots,  a  plurality  of  from  one  to  ten  votes.  The  cause  of  the 
protracted  balloting  was  the  scattering  of  votes  upon  other  candidates. 
The  "  free  soil"  democrats,  unwilling  to  vote  for  a  speaker  so  thoroughly 
pro-slavery  as  Mr.  Cobb,  cast  their  votes  for  Mr.  Wilmot,  as  did  also 
Mr.  Giddings  and  several  other  free  soil  whigs,  who  considered  Mr. 
Winthrop  as  having  been  too  favorable  toward  the  friends  of  slavery, 
during  his  speakership,  in  the  appointment  of  committees.  Mr.  Win- 
throp also  lost,  the  votes  of  five  southern  whigs,  Messrs.  Toombs, 
Stephens,  and  Owen,  of  Georgia,  Cabell,  of  Florida,  and  Morton,  of 
Virginia,  who  refused  to  vote  for  Mr.  Winthrop  without  a  pledge  against 
the  Wilmot  proviso. 

After  the  first  three  days,  the  vote  for  Mr.  Winthrop  ranged  from  100 
to  103,  while  that  for  Mr.  Cobb  rapidly  diminished,  being  at  one  time 
only  five  votes ;  the  democrats  having  divided  their  votes  upon  other 
candidates.  On  one  ballot,  the  highest  vote  given  for  a  democratic  can- 
didate was  forty-eight.  On  the  thirty-second  trial,  Mr.  Brown,  of 
Indiana,  was  taken  up  as  a  democratic  candidate,  and  received  53  votes^ 
being  a  large  plurality  of  the  democratic  vote.  Mr.  Brown's  vote 
rapidly  increased,  until  he  received,  on  the  thirty-eighth  and  thirty-ninth 
ballots,  109  votes;  Mr.  Winthrop,  100  and  101.  Mr.  Winthrop,  desi- 
rous of  terminating  the  contest,  requested  his  friends  to  concentrate 
their  efforts  on  some  other  candidate.  On  the  next  ballot,  Mr.  Brown 
received  112  votes;  the  whig  vote  was  much  scattered,  the  highest  num- 
ber given  for  any  one  being  26  for  Mr.  Duer,  of  New  York. 

Mr.  Stanly,  of  North  Carolina,  moved  a  joint  committee  of  three 
from  each  of  the  two  principal  parties  to  confer  relative  to  the  choice  of 
proper  officers  of  the  house.  During  the  discussion  of  this  resolution, 
the  fact  was  elicited,  that  the  high  vote  given  to  Mr.  Brown  had  been 
obtained  by  a  private  pledge,  in  a  correspondence  with  Mr.  Wilmot,  that 
he  would,  if  elected  speaker,  "constitute  the  committees  on  the  District 
of  Columbia,  on  territories,  and  on  the  judiciary,  in  such  manner  as 
should  be  satisfactory  to  him  (Mr.  Wilmot)  and  his  friends."  Mr. 
Brown  then  withdrew  his  name,  being  unwilling  to  occupy  the  chair 
under  circumstances  in  which  his  action  would  be  liable  to  misrepresen- 
tation. The  fortieth  ballot  was  scattered  upon  not  less  than  thirty  can- 
didates, of  whom  those  receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes,  were 
Mr.  Winthrop,  (59,)  and  Mr.  Cobb,  (40.)  Mr.  Boyd,  of  Kentucky, 
then  became  the  leading  candidate.  Messrs.  Cobb  and  Winthrop  were 
subsequently  returned  to  their  original  positions,  each  having  received, 
on  the  sixty  second  ballot,  97  votes.     In  pursuance  of  a  previous  agree- 


894  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

ment,  it  was  now  determined  to  terminate  the  contest  by  a  plurality 
vote;  and  on  the  next  ballot,  Mr.  Cobb  received  102  votes,  and  Mr. 
Winthrop  99  ;  scattering  20 ;  of  which  Mr.  Wilmot  received  8.  On 
motion  of  Mr.  Stanly,  Mr.  Cobb  was  declared  duly  elected. 

On  Monday,  the  24th,  the  message  of  President  Taylor  was  commu- 
nicated to  both  houses.  The  expenses  of  the  Mexican  war  and  treaty 
had  occasioned  a  deficit  in  the  treasury  ;  to  cover  which,  he  recommended 
a  resort  to  loans.  He  also  recommended  a  revision  of  the  tariff  with  a 
view  to  the  augmentation  of  the  revenue.  He  did  not  doubt  the  right 
or  duty  of  congress  to  encourage  domestic  industry,  the  source  of 
national  as  well  as  individual  prosperity.  He  recommended  the  adop- 
tion of  a  system  of  specific  duties,  as  best  adapted  to  this  object,  as  well 
as  the  augmentation  of  the  revenue,  and  the  prevention  of  frauds.  He 
submitted  to  the  wisdom  of  congress  the  question  of  the  continuance  of 
the  sub-treasury  system.  If  continued,  it  needed  important  modifica- 
tions. 

He  referred  to  the  new  territories.  The  people  of  California,  impelled 
by  the  necessities  of  their  political  condition,  were  forming  a  constitu- 
tion and  state  government,  and  would  probably  soon  apply  for  admis- 
sion as  a  state.  If  their  constitution  should  be  conformable  to  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  he  recommended  the  admission.  The 
people  of  New  Mexico,  also,  it  was  believed,  would  at  an  early  period 
apply  for  admission ;  and  he  recommended  that  congress  should  await 
the  action  of  the  people  themselves  in  forming  constitutions  preparatory 
to  the  admission  of  California  and  New  Mexico.  This,  he  believed, 
would  avoid  all  causes  of  uneasiness,  and  preserve  confidence  and  kind 
feeling.  Congress  should  abstain  from  the  introduction  of  those  excit- 
ing topics  of  a  sectional  character  which  had  produced  painful  appre- 
hensions in  the  public  mind.  Various  other  subjects  were  briefly  and 
properly  noticed  in  the  message. 

This  session  of  congress  was  preeminently  distinguished  for  the  char- 
acter of  its  legislation.  Its  principal  business  related  to  the  territorial 
question,  the  admission  of  California,  and  other  matters  relating  to  or 
involving  the  question  of  slavery,  resulting  in  another  and  a  most  sin- 
gular compromise. 

Various  propositions  were  originated  in  both  houses,  in  relation  to  the 
government  of  the  acquired  territory.  In  the  senate,  Mr.  Foote,  of 
Mississippi,  introduced  a  bill  for  organizing  territorial  governments,  in 
California,  Deseret,  and  New  Mexico ;  and  to  enable  the  people  of 
Jacinto,  Texas  consenting,  to  form  a  state  constitution  and  state  govern- 
ment, and  for  admitting  each  state  into  the  union,  on  an  equal  footing 
"With  the  original  states.     A  memorial  was  received  from  the  provisional 


CLAY  S    COMPROMISE    RESOLUTIONS.  895 

government  of  the  people  of  Desoret,  accompanied  by  a  constitution  and 
form  of  state  government,  asking  admission  as  a  state,  and  if  that 
request  should  be  denied,  then  to  have  a  territorial  government. 

On  the  29th  of  January,  1850,  Mr  Clay  submitted  a  series  of  reso- 
lutions, proposing  an  amicable  arrangement  of  the  whole  slavery  contro- 
versy. The  substance  of  these  resolutions,  eight  in  number,  was  as 
follows : 

1.  California,  with  suitable  boundaries,  ought  to  be  admitted  as  a 
state  without  restriction  in  respect  to  slavery. 

2.  As  slavery  was  not  likely  to  be  introduced  into  any  of  the  territory 
acquired  from  Mexico,  appropriate  governments  ought  to  be  established 
in  all  the  territory  not  assigned  to  the  state  of  California,  without 
restriction  as  to  slavery. 

3.  The  western  boundary  of  Texas  should  be  fixed  so  as  not  to  include 
any  portion  of  New  Mexico. 

4.  The  United  States  proposed  to  pay  the  debt  of  Texas,  contracted 
prior  to  annexation,  and  for  which  the  duties  on  imports  v/ere  pledged, 
not  exceeding  $ ,  on  condition  that  the  duties  be  thereafter  pay- 
able to  the  United  States,  and  that  Texas  relinquish  all  claim  to  any 
part  of  New  Mtxico. 

5.  It  was  inexpedient  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
whilst  it  exists  in  the  state  of  Maryland,  without  consent  of  the  people 
of  that  state  and  of  the  District,  and  without  just  compensation  of  the 
owners  of  the  slaves. 

6.  It  was  expedient  to  prohibit  the  slave  trade  within  the  District. 

7.  More  effectual  provision  ought  to  be  made  for  the  restitution  of 
fugitive  slaves. 

8.  Congress  had  no  power  to  prohibit  the  trade  in  slaves  between  the 
slaveholding  states. 

Mr.  Rusk,  of  Texas,  was  unwilling  that  half  of  that  state  should  be 
taken  to  make  a  peace-offering  to  the  spirit  of  encroachment  on  the  con- 
stitutional rights  of  one-half  of  the  union. 

Mr.  Foote,  of  Mississippi,  brought  a  long  array  of  objections  against 
the  resolutions.  They  only  declared  it  inexpedient  to  abolish  slavery  io 
the  district,  thus  implying  that  congress  had  the  powei\  which  he  denied. 
They  asserted  that  slavery  did  not  now  exist  in  the  acquired  territory ; 
whereas,  he  thought  the  acquisition  carried  with  it  the  constitution  and 
all  its  guaranties  to  that  territory,  admitting  into  it  the  slaveholder  with 
his  slaves.  Whether  slavery  was  or  was  not  likely  to  be  carried  thither, 
was  a  proposition  too  uncertain  to  be  positively  affirmed.  They  drew 
into  question  the  title  of  Texas  to  apart  of  her  territory.  They  assumed 
•^tate  debts,  a  principle  to  which  he  was  opposed.     If  Texan  soil  was  to 


896  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

be  bought,  let  it  be  paid  for  in  money.  To  the  abolition  of  the  slave 
trade  in  the  district,  he  did  not  object,  provided  it  was  done  delicately 
and  judiciously,  and  was  not  a  concession  to  menaces  or  demands  of  fac- 
tionists  or  fanatics.  Provisions  for  restoring  fugitives,  and  for  establish- 
ing territorial  governments  without  restriction  as  to  slavery,  he  approved. 
If  all  other  questions  relating  to  slavery  could  be  satisfactorily  adjusted, 
all  California  above  36  degrees  and  30  minutes  might  be  admitted  into 
the  union,  provided  a  new  state,  south  of  that  line,  could  be  laid  off  to 
balance  it. 

The  resolutions  of  Mr.  Clay  were  warmly  opposed  by  southern  sena- 
tors, as  making  no  concession  to  the  south — as  being  no  compromise  at 
all.  They  objected  to  the  admission  of  California,  embracing  all  our 
possessions  on  the  Pacific  coast,  with  a  provision  prohibiting  slavery. 
The  declaration  that  slavery  did  not  exist  in  New  Mexico  and  Deseret, 
precluded  its  admission  there,  just  as  effectually  as  if  it  were  positively 
affirmed  that  slavery  should  be  prohibited.  Scarcely  a  single  resolution 
was  satisfactory  to  southern  senators. 

Mr.  Benton  said,  it  had  been  affirmed  and  denied  that  slavery  had 
been  abolished  in  Mexico.  He  affirmed  its  abolition,  and  read  copious 
extracts  from  the  laws  and  constitution  of  Mexico,  in  prftof  of  the  affir- 
mation. Slavery  having  been  abolished  by  Mexican  law  before  we 
acquired  the  countries,  the  Wilmot  proviso  in  relation  to  these  countries 
was  a  thing  of  nothing — an  empty  provision.  He  said  also,  that  African 
slavery  never  had  existed  in  Mexico  in  the  form  in  which  it  existed  in 
the  states  of  this  union  ;  and  that,  if  the  Mexican  law  was  now  in  force 
in  New  Mexico  and  California,  no  slaveholder  from  the  union  would 
carry  a  slave  thither,  except  to  set  him  free.  The  policy  of  this  country 
was  to  discourage  emancipation ;  that  of  Mexico  had  been  to  promote  it. 
This  was  shown  by  numerous  quotations  of  the  laws  of  Mexico.  Slavery 
was  defined  by  Spanish  law  to  be  "  the  condition  of  a  man  who  is  the 
property  of  another  against  natural  right."  Therefore,  not  being 
derived  from  nature,  or  divine  law,  but  existing  only  by  positive  enact- 
ment, it  had  no  countenance  from  Spanish  law.  He  affirmed  these  three 
points  :  1.  Slavery  was  abolished  in  California  and  New  Mexico  before 
we  got  them.  2.  Even  if  not  abolished,  no  person  would  carry  a  slave 
to  those  countries  to  be  held  under  such  law.  3.  Slavery  could  not 
exist  there,  except  by  positive  law  yet  to  be  passed.  According  to  this 
exposition,  the  proviso  would  have  no  more  effect  there  than  a  piece  of 
blank  paper  pasted  on  the  statute  book. 

Mr.  Calhoun  said  tbe  union  was  in  danger.  The  cause  of  this  danger 
was  the  discontent  at  the  south.  And  what  was  the  cause  of  this  dis- 
content ?     It  was  found  in  the  belief  which  prevailed  among  them  that 


COMPROMISE    RESOLUTIONS CALHOUN.  897 

they  could  not,  consistently  with  honor  and  safety,  remain  in  the  union. 
And  what  had  caused  this  belief  ?  One  of  the  causes  was  the  long-con- 
tinued agitation  of  the  slave  question  at  the  north,  and  the  many  aggres- 
sions they  had  made  on  the  rights  of  the  south.  But  the  primary  cause 
was  in  the  fact,  that  the  equilibrium  between  the  two  sections  at  the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  had  been  destroyed.  The  jBrst 
of  the  series  of  acts  by  which  this  had  been  done,  was  the  ordinance  of 
1787,  by  which  the  south  had  been  excluded  from  all  the  north-western 
region.  The  next  was  the  Missouri  compromise,  excluding  them  from 
all  the  Louisiana  territory  north  of  36  degrees  30  minutes,  except  the 
state  of  Missouri;  in  all  1,238,025  square  miles,  leaving  to  the  south 
the  southern  portion  of  the  original  Louisiana  territory,  with  Florida  ; 
to  which  had  since  been  added  the  territory  acquired  with  Texas ;  making 
in  all  but  609,023  miles.  And  now  the  north  was  endeavoring  to  appro- 
priate to  herself  the  territory  recently  acquired  from  Mexico,  adding 
526,078  miles  to  the  territory  from  which  the  south  was  if  possible  to 
be  excluded.  Another  cause  of  the  destruction  of  this  equilibrium  was 
our  system  of  revenue,  (the  tariff,)  the  duties  falling  mainly  upon  the 
southern  portion  of  the  union,  as  being  the  greatest  exporting  states, 
while  more  than  a  due  proportion  of  the  revenue  had  been  disbursed  at 
the  north. 

But,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  while  these  measures  were  destroying  the 
equilibrium  between  the  two  sections,  the  action  of  the  government  was 
leading  to  a  radical  change  in  its  character.  It  was  maintained,  that 
the  government  itself  had  the  right  to  decide,  in  the  last  resort,  as  to  the 
extent  of  its  powers,  and  to  resort  to  force  to  maintain  the  power  it  claimed. 
[He  doubtless  had  in  his  mind  the  action  of  the  general  government  in 
1832,  in  providing  for  enforcing  the  collection  of  the  revenue  in  South 
Carolina,  while  the  authorities  of  that  state  claimed  the  right  to  resist.] 
The  doctrines  of  Gen.  Jackson's  proclamation,  subsequently  asserted  and 
maintained  by  Mr.  Madison,  the  leading  framer  and  expounder  of  the 
constitution,  were  the  doctrines  which,  if  carried  out,  would  change  the 
character  of  the  government,  from  a  federal  republic,  as  it  came  from  the 
hands  of  its  framers,  into  a  great  national  consolidated  democracy. 

Mr.  Calhoun  also  spoke  of  the  anti-slavery  agitation,  which,  if  not 
arrested,  would  destroy  the  union  ;  and  he  passed  a  censure  upon 
congress  for  receiving  abolition  petitions.  Had  congress  in  the  begin- 
ning adopted  the  course  which  he  had  advocated,  which  was  to  refuse  to 
take  jurisdiction,  by  the  united  voice  of  all  parties,  the  agitation  would 
have  been  prevented.  He  charged  the  north  with  false  professions  of 
*  devotion  to  the  union,  and  with  having  violated  the  constitution.  Acts 
had  been  passed  in  northern  states  to  set  aside  and  annul  the  clause  of 

57 


898  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  constitution  which  provides  for  delivering  up  fugitive  slaves.  The 
agitation  of  the  slavery  question,  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  abolishing 
slavery  in  the  states,  was  another  violation  of  the  constitution.  And 
during  the  fifteen  years  of  this  agitation,  in  not  a  single  instance  had 
the  people  of  the  north  denounced  these  agitators.  How  then  could 
their  professions  of  devotion  to  the  union  be  sincere  ? 

Mr.  C.  disapproved  both  the  plan  of  Mr.  Clay  and  that  of  president 
Taylor,  as  incapable  of  saving  the  union.  He  would  pass  by  the  former 
without  remark,  as  Mr.  Clay  had  been  replied  to  by  several  senators. 
The  executive  plan  could  not  save  the  union,  because  it  could  not  satisfy 
the  south  that  it  could  safely  or  honorably  remain  in  the  union.  It  was 
a  modification  of  the  Wilmot  proviso,  proposing  to  effect  the  same 
object,  the  exclusion  of  the  south  from  the  new  territory.  The  executive 
proviso  was  more  objectionable  than  the  Wilmot.  Both  inflicted  a 
dangerous  wound  upon  the  constitution,  by  depriving  the  southern  states 
of  equal  rights,  as  joint  partners,  in  these  territories;  but  the  former 
inflicted  others  equally  great.  It  claimed  for  the  inhabitants  the  right 
to  legislate  for  the  territories,  which  belonged  to  congress.  The 
assumption  of  this  right  was  utterly  unfounded,  unconstitutional,  and 
without  example.  Under  this  assumed  right,  the  people  of  California 
had  formed  a  constitution  and  a  state  government,  and  appointed  sena- 
tors and  representatives.  If  the  people,  as  adventurers,  had  conquered 
the  territory  and  established  their  independence,  the  sovereignty  of  the 
country  would  have  been  vested  in  them.  In  that  case,  they  would  have 
had  the  right  to  form  a  state  government ;  and  afterward  they  might 
have  applied  to  congress  for  admission  into  the  union.  But  the  United 
States  had  conquered  and  acquired  California;  therefore  to  them 
belonged  the  sovereignty,  and  the  powers  of  government  over  the  terri- 
tory. Michigan  was  the  flrst  case  of  departure  from  the  uniform  rule 
of  acting.  Hers,  however,  was  a  slight  departure  from  established 
usage.  The  ordinance  of  1787  secured  to  her  the  right  of  becoming  a 
state  when  she  should  have  60,000  inhabitants.  Congress  delayed 
taking  the  census.  The  people  became  impatient ;  and  after  her  popu- 
lation had  increased  to  twice  that  number,  they  formed  a  constitution 
without  waiting  for  the  taking  of  the  census ;  and  congress  waived  the 
omission,  as  there  was  no  doubt  of  the  requisite  number  of  inhabitants. 
In  other  cases  there  had  existed  territorial  governments. 

It  will  be  readily  inferred  from  these  views  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  he 

was  in  favor  of  placing  California  and  other  parts  of  the  territory  in  the 

territorial  condition,   under  a   government    established    by   congress, 

before  their  admission  as  states.  , 

Having  shown  how  the  union  could  not  be  saved,  he  then  proceeded 


COMPROMISE    RESOLUTIONS WEBSTER.  899 

to  answer  the  question  how  it  could  be  saved.  There  was  but  one  way 
certain.  Justice  must  be  done  to  the  south,  by  a  full  and  final  settle- 
ment of  all  the  questions  at  issue.  The  north  must  concede  to  the  south 
an  equal  right  to  the  acquired  territory,  and  fulfill  the  stipulations  res- 
pecting fugitive  slaves  ;  must  cease  to  agitate  the  slave  question,  and 
join  in  an  amendment  of  the  constitution,  restoring  to  the  south  the 
power  she  possessed  of  protecting  herself,  before  the  equilibrium  between 
the  two  sections  had  b»en  destroyed  by  the  action  of  the  government. 

Mr,  Webster,  on  the  7th  of  March,  spoke  at  length  on  the  resolu- 
tions of  Mr.  Clay,  and  in  reply  to  Mr.  Calhoun.  In  the  course  of  his 
history  of  the  slave  question  in  this  country,  he  remarked,  that  a  change 
had  taken  place  since  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  constitution. 
Both  sections  then  held  slavery  to  be  equally  an  evil,  moral  and  politi- 
cal. It  was  inhuman  and  cruel ;  it  weakened  the  social  fabric,  and  ren- 
dered labor  less  productive.  The  eminent  men  of  the  south  then  held 
it  to  be  an  evil,  a  blight,  a  scourge,  and  a  curse.  The  framers  of  the 
constitution,  in  considering  how  to  deal  with  it,  concluded  that  it  could 
not  be  continued  if  the  importation  of  slaves  should  cease.  The  prohi- 
bition of  the  importation  after  twenty  years  was  proposed;  a  term  which 
some  southern  gentlemen,  Mr.  Madison,  for  one,  thought  too  long. 
The  word  "  slaves"  was  not  allowed  in  the  constitution  ;  Mr,  Madison 
was  opposed  to  it ;  he  did  not  wish  to  see  it  recognized  in  that  instru- 
ment, that  there  could  be  property  in  men.  The  ordinance  of  1787  also 
received  the  unanimous  support  of  the  south ;  a  measure  which  Mr. 
Calhoun  had  said  was  the  first  in  a  series  of  measures  which  had  enfee- 
bled that  section. 

Soon  after  this,  the  age  of  cotton  came.  The  south  wanted  land  for 
its  cultivation.  Mr.  Calhoun  had  observed  that  there  had  always  been 
a  majority  in  favor  of  the  north.  If  so,  the  north  had  acted  very  libe- 
rally or  very  weakly  ;  for  they  had  seldom  exercised  their  power.  The 
truth  was,  the  general  lead  in  politics  for  three-fourths  of  the  time  had  been 
southern  lead.  In  1802,  a  great  cotton  region,  now  embracing  all  Ala- 
bama, had  been  obtained  from  Georgia  by  the  general  government.  In 
1803,  Louisiana  was  purchased,  out  of  which  several  large  slaveholding 
states  had  been  formed.  In  1819,  Florida  was  ceded,  which  also  had 
come  in  as  slave  territory.  And  lastly,  Texas — great,  vast,  illimitable 
Texas,  had  been  admitted  as  a  slave  state.  In  this,  the  senator  himself, 
as  secretary  of  state,  and  the  late  secretary  of  the  treasury,  then  sena- 
tor, had  taken  the  lead.  They  had  done  their  work  thoroughly ;  having 
procured  a  stipulation  for  four  new  states  to  be  formed  out  of  that  state; 
and  all  south  of  the  line  of  36^  30'  might  be  admitted  with  slavery. 
Even  New  England  had  aided  in  this  measure.     Three-fourths  of  liberty- 


900  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

loving  Connecticut  in  the  other  house,  and  one-half  in  this,  had  sup 
ported  it.  And  it  had  one  vote  from  each  of  the  states  of  Massachusetts 
and  Maine. 

A  part  of  the  remainder  of  Mr.  "Webster's  speech  has  been  highly  dis- 
approved by  some  of  his  former  friends  at  the  north,  as  pro-slavery,  and 
inconsistent  with  his  sentiments  as  previously  expressed  on  the  subject. 
Mr.  Webster  attributed  any  supposed  discrepancy  between  his  present 
and  former  sentiments  to  a'  change  in  the  state  of  the  question.  He  had 
in  1836  and  1837  publicly  expressed  himself  warmly  against  the  admis- 
sion of  Texas  and  the  extension  of  slavery.  He  had  nothing  to  add  to, 
or  take  back  from  those  sentiments.  In  1847,  he  had  made  a  speech  at 
a  whig  state  convention  at  Springfield,  Massachusetts,  in  which  he  said : 

"  We  hear  much  just  now  of  a.  panacea  for  the  dangers  and  evils  of 
slavery  and  slave  annexation,  which  they  call  the  '  Wilmot  proviso.' 
This  certainly  is  a  just  sentiment,  but  it  is  not  a  sentiment  to  found  any 
new  party  upon.  It  is  not  a  sentiment  on  which  Massachusetts  whigs 
differ.  There  is  not  a  man  in  this  hall  who  holds  to  it  more  firmly  than 
I  do,  nor  one  who  adheres  to  it  more  than  another. 

"  I  feel  some  little  interest  in  this  matter,  sir.  Did  not  I  commit 
myself  in  1838  to  the  whole  doctrine,  fully,  entirely?  And  I  must  be 
permitted  to  say,  that  I  can  not  quite  consent  that  more  recent  discov- 
erers should  claim  the  merit,  and  take  out  a  patent.  I  deny  the  priority 
of  their  invention.  Allow  me  to  say,  sir,  it  is  not  their  thunder.  *  *  * 
We  are  to  use  the  first,  and  last,  and  every  occasion  which  offers,  ta 
oppose  the  extension  of  the  slave  power." 

Mr.  Webster  said  he  had  repeatedly  expressed  the  determination  to 
vote  for  no  acquisition,  or  cession,  or  annexation,  believing  we  had  ter- 
ritory enough.  But  Texas  was  now  in  with  all  her  territories,  as  a  slave 
state,  with  a  pledge  that,  if  divided  into  many  states,  those  south  of 
36°  30'  might  come  in  as  slave  states ;  and  he,  for  one,  meant  to  fulfill 
the  obligation.  As  to  California  and  New  Mexico,  he  held  that  slavery 
was  effectually  excluded  from  those  territories  by  a  law  even  superior  to 
that  which  admits  and  sanctions  it  in  Texas — he  meant  the  law  of 
nature.  The  physical  geography  of  the  country  would  forever  exclude 
African  slavery  there ;  and  it  needed  not  the  application  of  a  proviso. 
If  the  question  was  now  before  the  senate,  he  would  not  vote  to  add  a 
prohibition — to  reaffirm  an  ordinance  of  nature,  nor  reenact  the  will  of 
God.  If  they  were  making  a  government  for  New  Mexico,  and  a  Wil- 
mot proviso  were  proposed,  he  would  treat  it  as  Mr.  Polk  had  treated  it 
in  the  Oregon  bill.  Mr.  Polk  was  opposed  to  it ;  but  some  government 
was  necessary,  and  he  signed  the  bill,  knowing  that  the  proviso  was 
entirely  nugatory. 


COMPROMISE    RESOLUTIONS ^WEBSTER.  901 

Both  the  north  and  the  south  had  grievances.  The  south  justly  com- 
plained that  individuals  and  legislatures  of  the  north  refused  to  perform 
their  constitutional  duties  in  regard  to  returning  fugitive  slaves.  Mem- 
bers of  northern  legislatures  were  bound  by  oath  to  support  the  consti- 
tution of  the  United  States;  and  the  clause  requiring  the  delivery  of 
fugitive  slaves  was  as  binding  as  any  other.  Complaints  had  also  been 
made  against  certain  resolutions  emanating  from  legislatures  at  the  north 
on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  district,  and  sometimes  even  in  regard 
to  its  abolition  in  the  states.  Abolition  societies  were  another  subject 
of  complaint.  These  societies  had  done  nothing  useful ;  but  they  had 
produced  mischief  by  their  interference  with  the  south.  He  referred  to 
the  debate  in  the  Virginia  legislature  in  1832,  when  the  subject  of 
gradual  abolition  was  freely  discussed.  But  since  the  agitation  of  this 
question,  the  bonds  of  the  slave  had  been  more  firmly  riveted.  Again, 
the  violence  of  the  press  was  complained  of.  But  wherever  the  freedom 
of  the  press  existed,  there  always  would  be  foolish  and  violent  para- 
graphs, as  there  were  foolish  and  violent  speeches  in  both  houses  of  con- 
gress. He  thought,  however,  the  north  had  cause  for  the  same  com- 
plaint of  the  south.  But  of  these  grievances  of  the  south,  one  only 
was  within  the  redress  of  the  government ;  that  was  the  want  of  proper 
regard  to  the  constitutional  injunction  for  the  delivery  of  fugitive  slaves. 

The  north  complained  of  the  south,  that,  when  the  former,  in  adopt- 
ing the  constitution,  recognized  the  right  of  representation  of  the 
slaves,  it  was  under  a  state  of  sentiment  different  from  that  which  now 
existed.  It  was  generally  hoped  and  believed,  that  the  institution  would 
be  gradually  extinguished  ;  instead  of  which,  it  was  now  to  be  cherished, 
and  preserved,  and  extended  ;  and  for  this  purpose,  the  south  was  con- 
stantly demanding  new  territory.  A  southern  senator  had  said,  that  the 
condition  of  the  slaves  Was  preferable  to  that  of  the  laboring  population 
of  the  north.  Said  Mr.  Webster:  "Who  are  the  north?  Five-sixths 
of  the  whole  property  of  the  north  is  in  the  hands  of  laborers,  who  cul- 
tivate their  own  farms,  educate  their  children,  and  provide  the  means 
of  independence.  Those  who  were  not  freeholders,  earned  wages,  which, 
as  they  accumulated,  were  turned  into  capital. 

Another  grievance  at  the  north  was,  that  their  free  colored  citizens 
employed  on  vessels  arriving  at  southern  ports,  were  taken  on  shore  by 
the  municipal  authority,  and  imprisoned  till  the  vessel  was  ready  to  sail. 
This  was  inconvenient  in  practice  ;  and  was  deemed  unjustifiable,  oppres- 
sive, and  unconstitutional.  It  was  a  great  grievance.  So  far  as  these 
grievances  had  their  foundation  in  matters  of  law,  they  could  and  ought 
to  be  redressed ;  and  so  far  as  they  rested  in  matters  of  opinion,  in 
mutual  crimination  and  recrimination,  we  could  only  endeavor  to  allay 


902  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  agitation,  and  cultivate  a  better  feeling  between  the  south  and  the 
north. 

Mr.  Webster  expressed  great  pain  at  hearing  secession  spoken  of  as 
a  possible  event.  Said  he :  "  Secession  !  Peaceable  secession  !  Sir, 
your  eyes  and  mine  are  never  destined  to  see  that  miracle.  Who  is  so 
foolish — I  beg  every  body's  pardon — as  to  expect  to  see  any  such  thing  ? 
There  could  be  no  such  thing  as  peaceable  secession — a  concurrent  agree- 
ment of  the  members  of  this  great  republic  to  separate  ?  Where  is  the 
line  to  be  drawn  ?  What  states  are  to  secede  ?  Where  is  the  flag  of 
the  republic  to  remain  ?  What  is  to  become  of  the  army  ? — of  the 
navy  ? — of  the  public  lands  ?  How  is  each  of  the  states  to  defend 
itself  ?  *  *  *  To  break  up  this  great  government !  to  dismember 
this  great  country !  to  astonish  Europe  with  an  act  of  folly,  such  as 
Europe  for  two  centuries  has  never  beheld  in  any  government !  No, 
sir  !  no,  sir  !  There  will  be  no  secession.  Gentlemen  are  not  serious 
when  they  talk  of  secession." 

In  regard  to  Texas,  he  said,  if  she  should  please  to  cede  to  the  United 
States  any  portion  of  her  territory  adjacent  to  New  Mexico,  north  of 
34  degrees,  to  be  formed  into  a  free  state,  for  a  fair  equivalent  in  money, 
or  in  the  payment  of  her  debt,  he  would  concur  in  the  measure.  He 
was  willing  also  to  appropriate  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  to  defray 
the-expense  of  promoting  the  colonization  of  free  colored  persons  in  any 
part  of  the  world,  if  the  south  would  propose  such  a  scheme. 

On  the  13th  of  February,  1850,  the  president  transmitted  to  con- 
gress, by  message,  a  copy  of  the  constitution  of  California.  Mr.  Doug- 
las moved  that  the  message  and  accompanying  documents  be  referred  to 
the  committee  on  territories.  Mr.  Foote  moved  their  reference  to  a 
special  committee  of  thirteen,  "  whose  duty  it  should  be  to  consider 
them,  together  with  the  various  other  propositions  before  the  senate  on 
the  same  subject,  in  connection  with  the  question  of  domestic  slavery, 
and  to  report  a  plan  for  the  definitive  settlement  of  the  present  unhappy 
controversy,  and  rescue  from  impending  perils  the  sacred  union  itself." 

Mr.  Clay  thought  it  improper  to  throw  all  these  subjects  before  one 
committee  to  be  acted  on  together.  He  wished  the  question  of  the  ad- 
mission of  California  kept  separate  and  distinct.  Three  or  four  mem- 
bers of  congress  had  come  all  the  way  from  the  Pacific,  with  a  constitu- 
tion of  a  state  asking  admission  into  the  union ;  and  it  was  not  right 
to  subject  them  to  the  delay  which  would  result  from  the  combination 
of  all  these  subjects.  After  some  discussion,  Mr.  Benton,  on  the  14th, 
moved  to  amend  Mr.  Douglas'  motion,  by  adding,  "  with  instructions 
to  report  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  the  state  of  California,  unconnected 
with  any  other  subject." 


90o 

Mr.  Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  was  opposed  to  the  admission  of 
California  as  a  state,  organized,  as  she  had  been,  without  the  previous 
authority  of  congress.  Other  new  states  had  first  been  organized  as  terri- 
tories. A  few  other  territories,  he  admitted,  had  moved  in  the  matter 
of  their  admission,  and  formed  state  constitutions,  without  authority 
from  congress  ;  but  the  cases  were  different.  He  was  inclined  to  adhere 
to  established  precedents. 

Mr.  Hale  said,  as  regarded  one  step  in  the  progress  of  this  question, 
the  senate  was  not  without  precedents.  It  might  produce  a  smile  to 
mention  them:  they  were  ''Texas"  and  "Oregon."  They  went  to- 
gether through  the  presidential  election  like  the  Siamese  twins.  When 
these  questions  came  into  congress  to  be  settled,  the  two  loving  sisters 
had  to  be  separated;  and  Oregon  had  to  wait  in  the  cold  latitude  of 
54°  40',  until  Texas  had  been  disposed  of  He  was  for  first  taking 
care  of  California  by  herself,  and  giving  her  the  entertainment  to  which 
she  was  entitled ;  then  they  could  turn  their  attention  to  New  Mexico, 
and  dispose  of  her  ;  then  to  Deseret ;  and  then  to  San  Jacinto,  because 
this  came  next  in  order. 

Mr.  Seward  was  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  California,  disconnected 
from  all  other  questions ;  and,  in  a  speech  of  great  length,  expressed 
his  views  upon  the  several  topics  embraced  in  the  debate,  as  well  as 
upon  the  question  of  slavery  itself  Copious  extracts  from  the  speech 
will  constitute  a  material  part  of  the  next  chapter. 

Among  the  numerous  propositions  to  dispose  of  the  territorial  and 
slavery  questions,  in  both  houses,  most  of  which  we  can  not  notice,  was 
a  series  of  resolutions,  nine  in  number,  ofi"ered  in  the  senate,  on  the 
28th  of  February,  by  Mr.  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  providing  for  the  future 
division  of  Texas,  and  the  admission  of  the  different  portions  as  states. 
Also,  by  consent  of  Texas,  that  portion  of  lands  claimed  by  Texas,  lying 
west   of  the  Colorado,  and  north  of  the  42d  degree  of  latitude,  was  to 

be  ceded  to  the  United  States  for  a  sum  not  exceeding millions 

of  dollars.  California  was  to  be  admitted  as  a  state ;  but  in  future,  the 
formation  of  state  constitutions  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  territories 
was  to  be  regulated  by  law ;  and  the  inhabitants  were  to  have  power  to 
settle  and  adjust  all  questions  of  internal  state  policy,  (including,  ot 
course,  the  question  of  slavery.)  The  committee  on  territories  to  be 
instructed  to  bring  in  a  bill  in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  reso- 
lutions. 

On  the  17th  of  April,  pursuant  to  a  proposition  of  Mr.  Foote,  pre- 
viously made,  a  select  committee  of  thirteen,  (Mr,  Clay  chairman,)  was 
elected  by  the  senate,  to  whom  were  to  be  referred  the  compromise  reso- 
lutions of  Mr.  Bell,  in  regard  to  the  slave,  California,  and  territorial 


V 


904  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN.  *      • 

questions.  Seven  of  the  committee  were  from  slave  states.  On  the 
8th  of  May,  the  committee  brought  in  a  report.  The  views  and  recom- 
mendations which  it  contained,  were  recapitulated  as  follows  : 

1/  The  admission  of  any  new  state  or  states  formed  out  of  Texas,  to 
be  postponed  until  they  shall  hereafter  present  themselves  to  be  re- 
ceived into  the  union,  when  it  will  be  the  duty  of  congress  fairly  and 
faithfully  to  execute  the  compact  with  Texas,  by  admitting  such  new 
state  or  states. 

2.  The  admission,  forthwith,  of  California  into  the  union,  with  the 
boundaries  which  she  has  proposed. 

3.  The  establishment  of  territorial  governments,  without  the  Wilmot 
proviso,  for  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  embracing  all  the  territory  re- 
cently acquired  by  the  United  States  from  Mexico  not  contained  in  the 
boundaries  of  California. 

4.  The  combination  of  these  two  last  mentioned  measures  in  the  same 
bill. 

5.  The  establishment  of  the  western  and  northern  boundary  of  Texas, 
and  the  exclusion  from  her  jurisdiction  of  all  New  Mexico,  with  a  grant 
to  Texas  of  a  pecuniary  equivalent ;  and  the  section  for  that  purpose  to 
be  incorporated  in  the  bill  admitting  California,  and  establishing  territo- 
rial governments  for  Utah  and  New  Mexico. 

6.  More  effectual  enactments  of  law  to  secure  the  prompt  delivery  of 
fugitive  slaves  escaping  into  the  free  states. 

7.  Slavery  not  to  be  abolished  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  but  the 
slave  trade  therein  to  be  prohibited  under  a  heavy  penalty. 

The  object  of  grouping  together  so  many  different  subjects  in  the 
same  report,  and  the  embracing  of  three — the  first  three  above  men- 
tioned— in  one  bill,  was  avowedly  intended  to  compel  those  in  favor  of 
admitting  Califorfia  as  a  free  state,  to  vote  for  the  establishment  of  the 
territorial  governments  without  the  proviso.  To  make  the  admission 
of  a  state — a  measure  to  which,  of  itself,  there  was  no  objection — depend 
upon  the  adoption  of  others  whose  success,  upon  their  own  merits,  is 
doubtful,  is  a  proposition  which,  in  the  abstract,  would  find  few  ad- 
vocates. 

The  debate  on  the  compromise  bill  continued  in  the  senate  until  the 
last  day  of  July,  having  been,  in  the  mean  time,  trimmed  down  by 
amendments,  until  only  a  small  portion  of  it  remained.  From  the  at- 
tempt to  carry  through  so  many  measures  in  one  bill,  the  bill  had  ob- 
tained the  name  of  "  the  omnibus."  The  other  parts  of  the  bill  hav- 
ing been  successively  dropped,  it  passed  the  senate  only  as  "  a  bill  to 
provide  for  the  territorial  government  of  Utah."  It  was  ordered  to  a 
third  reading,  by  a  vote  of  32  to  18,  and  subsequently  passed.     It  was 


TEXAS  BOUNDARY BENTON.  905 

sent  the  next  day  to  the  house,  where  its  announcement  was  received 
with  much  merriment ;  insomuch  that  the  interposition  of  the  speaker 
became  necessary  to  restore  order.  The  dismemberment  of  the  bill 
was  humorously  called  ''  upsetting  the  omnibus." 

Subsequently,  however,  the  other  portions  of  the  bill  were  pressed 
in  separate  bills.  California  was  admitted;  a  territorial  government 
bill  for  New  Mexico  was  passed ;  and  a  bill  establishing  the  boundary 
of  Texas.  By  the  offer  of  $  1 0,000,000,  Texas  was  induced  to  relinquish 
her  claims  to  New  Mexico.  The  bill  also  to  abolish  the  slave  trade  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  and  the  fugitive  slave  law,  were  passed,  and 
became  laws. 

Senators  Benton  and  Seward  were  supposed  to  have  contributed  much 
to  the  defeat  of  the  committee's  bill.     Mr.  Benton  exposed  the  injustice, 
not  to  say  fraud,  of  the  committee,  which  seems  to  have  been  covered 
in  that  part  of  the  bill  which  proposed  to  settle  the  boundary  of  Texas. 
On  the  15th  of  July,  he  moved  an  amendment  to  that  part  of  the  bill, 
greatly  reducing  the  territory  assigned  to   Texas  by    the  committee. 
He  contended  that  the  committee  gave  Texas  some  70,000  square  miles 
of  the  territory  of  New  Mexico.     He  charged  upon  the  committee  a 
design  to  cede  a  part  of  New  Mexico  to  Texas,  instead  of  ascertaining 
the  true  line  between  them ;  and  he  reviewed  their  report  to  sustain 
the  charge.     He  also  referred  to  a  new  map  of  the  state,  the  accuracy 
of  which  had  been  certified  by  both  the  senators  of  that  state.  Busk  and 
Houston,  and  the  two  representatives,  Kaufman  and  Pilsbury,  besides 
several  state   officers,  one   of  whom  was  the  secretary  of  state.     The 
map  was  compiled  in   1848,  the  very  date  of  the  treaty  with  Mexico. 
Holding  up  the  map,  he  said :  "  Look  at  it — it  is  large  enough  to  be 
seen  across  the  chamber,  and  shows  objects  with  sufficient  distinctness 
to  be  observed  by  all.     Its  western  limit  is  the  longitude  of  102!  the 
very  limit  I  propose,  as  if  I  had  made  the  map  myself  to  suit  my  bill. 
*         *         *         Behold  it!      There  is   102  cutting   the  long   blank 
space  marked  El  Llano  Estacado^  the  staked  plain ;  and  here  are  all 
the  breaks  in  the  eastern  declivity  of  that  long,  broad,  and  sterile  table 
land,  from  which  issue  the  thousand  little  streams  which,  taking  their 
course  toward  the  rising  sun,  and  gathering  themselves  into  large  chan- 
nels, give  birth  to  all  the  beautiful  rivers  of  Texas — the  Colorado,  the 
Brazos,  the  Nueces,  and  the  southern  forks  of  the  Bed  river.     There 
they  all  are  !     Everything  that  is  Texan  by  nature  or  by  law  !     Bivers, 
towns,  counties,  all  to  the  east  of  102,  and  all  separated  from  New 
Mexico    by   the   high   desert  plain  which  marks  the  structure  of  the 
country,  and   divides   the   systems   of  rivers  and  of  lands  from  each 
other." 


906  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Mr.  B.  denounced,  in  strong  terms,  the  report  of  the  committee, 
because  in  it  they  express  no  opinion  at  all.  Adopting  neither  the  opin- 
ion of  those  who  think  the  state  bounded  by  the  Nueces,  nor  that  of  those 
who  think  it  extends  to  the  Rio  Grande,  without  any  regard  to  what  is 
true  or  legitimate,  they  cut  New  Mexico  in  two,  and  give  one-half  of  it 
to  Texas.  "  Cutting  instead  of  untying  the  Grordian  knot,  they  take  a 
new  course  across  the  Puercos,  beginning  half  way  up  the  Del  Norte,  cut 
New  Mexico  in  two  just  below  the  hips,  giving  the  lower  half  to  Texas, 
leaving  New  Mexico  to  stump  it  about  as  best  she  can  without  feet  or 
legs.  *  *  *  They  give  70,000  square  miles  to  Texas,  and  offer  her 
$10,000,000  to  accept  it!" 

According  to  the  committee's  report,  70,000  square  miles  were  to  be 
taken  from  New  Mexico,  and  added  to  Texas ;  and  75,000  were  to  be 
ceded  by  Texas  to  the  United  States.  The  territory  given  to  Texas 
was  said  to  be  far  more  valuable  than  that  which  the  United  States  were 
to  receive.  Mr.  Benton  objected  to  giving  two  equivalents — an  equiva- 
lent in  land  and  another  in  money — for  what  we  received  of  Texas.  He 
objected  to  accepting  a  cession  of  New  Mexico  from  Texas,  first,  because 
the  United  States  herself  had  a  claim  to  it,  and  had  actual  possession  ; 
and  secondly,  because  the  acceptance  of  such  a  cession  would  admit  the 
title  of  Texas  to  all  New  Mexico  east  of  the  Rio  Grrande,  and  so  raise 
questions  to  disturb  both  New  Mexico  and  the  United  States  ;  and  thirdly, 
because  we  offered  more  valuable  territory  than  we  were  to  receive,  and 
then  were  to  pay  the  value  of  what  we  received,  into  the  bargain,  and 
which  was  ours  before. 

Mr.  Rusk,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Benton,  admitted  the  map  to  be  correct, 
but  denied  that  it  limited  Texas  to  the  boundaries  stated  by  Mr.  B. 
He  said  he  was  willing  to  settle  the  controversy,  by  an  act  declaring  the 
boundaries  of  Texas  to  be  as  laid  down  on  this  map,  certified  by  himself 
and  Gen.  Houston,  and  others :  and  he  proceeded  to  advocate  the  right 
of  Texas  to  all  she  claimed. 

Mr.  Clay  concurred  with  Mr.  Rusk  in  relation  to  the  true  boundary, 
and  referred  to  authorities  in  support  of  the  claims  of  Texas,  and  of  the 
bill  reported  by  the  committee.  He  read  from  Mr.  Benton's  speech  the 
following  remark,  to  which  he  took  strong  exceptions :  "  The  bill  is 
caught,  flagrante  delicto — taken  in  the  fact — seized  by  the  throat  and 
held  up  to  public  view — [and  here  Mr.  B.  is  represented  by  the  reporter 
as  grappling  the  bill  and  holding  it  up] — in  the  very  act  of  perpetrating 
its  crime,  in  the  very  act  of  auctioyieering  for  votes  to  pass  itself ^  Mr. 
Clay  thought  such  language  inadmissible  upon  the  floor  of  the  senate. 
"  Auctioneering  for  votes  to  carry  the  bill !"  Who  auctioneered  ?  the 
bill,  or  the  senate,  or  the  committee  ?     If  the  senator  meant  that  it  was 


TEXAS  BOUNDARY BENTON.  907 

the  intention  of  the  bill  to  auctioneer  for  votes  to  carry  it,  he  (Mr.  C.) 
repelled  the  charge  as  a  groundless  imputation.  It  might  be  said  of 
every  appropriation  of  money,  that  the  object  was  to  bribe,  to  auctioneer 
for  votes,  or  to  purchase  votes  to  carry  the  appropriation. 

Mr.  Clay  then  requested  the  secretary  to  read  a  bill  introduced  by  Mr. 
Benton  himself  in  January,  at  the  same  session,  proposing  to  Texas  tho 
reduction  of  her  boundaries,  and  the  cession  of  her  extensive  territory, 
for  a  consideration  to  be  paid  her  by  the  United  States.  In  this  bill, 
said  Mr.  C,  was  the  very  same  language  employed  by  the  committee : 
"A  cession,"  "a  ceding;"  for  which  it  was  proposed  to  give  Texas 
$15,000,000.  The  proposition  made  by  the  senator  from  Missouri,  was 
therefore  liable  to  the  same  imputation  of  being  intended  to  auctioneer 
for  votes.  He  considered  it  a  degradation  to  the  body  to  suppose  that 
members  could  be  influenced  by  an  offer  of  money  in  the  shape  of  an 
appropriation  for  a  legitimate  purpose. 

Mr.  Benton,  in  reply,  said  Mr.  Clay  was  mistaken  in  his  geography. 
The  United  States  had  not  acquired  New  Mexico  by  the  name  of  New 
Mexico.  Our  acquisitions  were  not  limited  to  New  Mexico,  but  embraced 
all  the  territory  belonging  to  Mexico  on  this  side  of  the  Rio  Grande. 
We  took  the  whole ;  and  this  part  of  Chihuahua  was  included  in  the  state 
of  Chihuahua  as  ceded  to  the  United  States,  as  a  cession  of  a  part  of 
what  was  the  state  of  Chihuahua,  and  not  a  cession  of  what  was  a  part  of 
the  state  of  Texas.  And  what  was  it,  he  asked,  that  lay  between  New 
Mexico  and  Texas  ?  It  was  Tamaulipas  and  Coahuila.  He  said,  Mr. 
C.  had  occupied  himself  with  the  southern  line,  and  had  shown  the 
northern  boundary,  and  the  southern  boundary  of  Chihuahua  down  to 
Durango  ;  but  he  had  said  not  a  word  about  the  eastern  boundary,  which, 
after  all,  was  the  only  line  in  controversy.  He  denied  that  his  bill  and 
that  of  the  committee  were  identical,  as  Mr.  Clay  had  stated.  The  latter 
provided  for  a  mutual  cession  of  territory.  The  United  States  ceded  to 
Texas  all  south  of  the  committee's  line,  and  Texas  ceded  all  north  of  it 
to  the  United  States.  But  his  (Mr.  B.'s)  bill  made  no  cession  to  Texas 
at  all — not  an  inch  of  anything.  And  in  his  bill,  Texas  ceded  only  such 
territory  as  belonged  to  her,  exterior  to  her  boundaries,  and  nothing 
more.  It  neither  made  a  cession  of  any  part  of  New  Mexico  to  Texas, 
nor  accepted  a  cession  of  any  part  of  New  Mexico  from  Texas. 

Mr.  Benton  charged  Mr.  Clay  with  unfairness  in  his  quotation  from 
his  (Mr.  B.'s)  remarks  in  relation  to  "  auctioneering  for  votes"  to  pass 
the  compromise  bill.  He  had  omitted  both  what  preceded  and  what  fol- 
lowed the  words  quoted,  in  respect  to  which  Mr.  B.  said,  if  it  had  been 
read,  it  would  not  have  inculpated  senators,  but  would  have  shown  that 
the  imputation  was  against  the  bill  and  not  against  the  senators.  And 
he  challenged  Mr.  Clay  to  call  him  to  order. 


908  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Mr.  Clay  put  in  writing  the  offensive  words,  and  sent  them  to  the 
chair.  Mr.  Benton  demanded  that  the  previous  and  concluding  parts 
of  the  paragraph  also  be  read.     He  said  : 

"  The  words  are  expressly  confined  to  the  bill  and  its  effect ;  and  I 
have  a  right  to  speak  of  a  measure  in  whatever  terms  I  please.  I  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  committee.  And  if  it  is  to  be  a  question  between 
gentlemen  of  a  committee  and  a  member  who  is  speaking  every  time 
that  a  senator  characterizes  a  measure  by  its  effects,  and  attributes  to  it 
injurious  or  injudicious  effects,  if  that  is  to  be  made  a  question  among 
men,  then  there  is  an  end  of  all  freedom  of  debate  upon  any  measure.  I 
knew  perfectly  well  what  I  said.  I  knew  that  I  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  committee,  but  I  knew  that  I  had  a  right  to  speak  of  the  effect  of 
this  bill,  and  I  took  this  bill,  sir,  not  as  it  concerned  Texas,  but  as  it 
concerned  other  measures  which  were  bound  up  in  the  same  bill  with 
Texas,  and  whose  fate  was  to  depend  upon  the  fate  of  Texas,  and  which 
itself  was  to  depend  upon  money.  I  saw  a  shocking  enormity  resulting 
from  the  committee's  omnibus  bill,  and  was  determined  to  expose  it — 
and  have  done  it. 

"  The  senator  from  Kentucky  has  read  the  bill  which  I  introduced, 
proposing  fifteen  millions  of  dollars  to  Texas.  Sir,  is  that  bill  mixed  up 
with  any  other  measure  ?  Was  anything  tacked  to  that  bill  ?  And  was 
any  consequence  to  result  to  any  measure  in  the  world,  except  to  Texas 
herself,  from  the  votes  which  would  be  given  upon  that  bill  ?  Sir,  we 
know  that  in  voting  upon  tl^at  bill  by  itself,  senators  from  Texas  would 
vote,  and  ought  to  vote  according  to  what  was  the  interest  of  their  state, 
and  would  hurt  no  other  measure.  Senators  from  Texas  would  vote,  and 
ought  to  vote,  for  what  they  might  think  would  be  right  and  proper  and 
necessary  to  give  to  Texas,  and  in  so  doing  it  would  not  affect  California, 
New  Mexico,  or  Utah.  Mine  was  a  bill  by  itself,  involving  no  other 
measures  ;  but  here  is  a  conglomerate  bill,  in  which  the  life  of  California 
is  concerned,  on  which  her  admission  as  a  state  into  this  union  is  made 
dependent  upon  what  happens  to  Texas.         *  #  * 

"  Hence,  Mr.  President — and  here  is  the  point  of  all — I  say  that,  in 
a  measure  so  large  as  one  admitting  a  state  into  the  union,  and  giving  a 
government  to  territories,  these  great  questions  are  to  be  left  out 
of  view,  and  made  merely  subordinate  to  another  question,  and  that 
question  is  to  be  the  sum  of  money  which  is  to  be  voted  at  the  last  mo- 
ment to  another  and  a  different  state.  There  lies  the  pinch ;  there  is 
the  point  of  my  remarks  yesterday — ^the  nerve  into  which  my  knife 
entered  yesterday,  and  which  the  senator  from  Kentucky  so  carefully 
abstains  from  touching  to-day.  Do  we  not  all  know,  sir,  that  on  this 
bill,  called  compromise,  the  senate  is  about  balanced  ?     Do  we  not  all 


TEXAS  BOUNDARY BENTON.  909 

know  that  two  votes,  and  they  count  four — two  off  and  two  on — will  turn 
the  scale,  and  that  they  will  make  decisive  the  fate  of  this  conglomerated 
bill,  and  that  without  the  least  regard  to  what  is  to  happen  to  New 
Mexico  or  California  ?  They  are  all  tied  together,  and  the  whole  bill  is 
to  pass,  or  not  to  pass,  precisely  according  to  the  amount  of  money  paid 
to  Texas.  Don't  we  know  this  ?  Don't  we  see  it  ?  Does  not  every 
body  see  it  ?  And  does  it  not  present  one  of  the  most  flagrant  instances 
of  the  enormity  of  joining  incongruous  matters  that  the  history  of  all 
legislation  has  ever  presented  to  the  world  ? 

"  The  senator  from  Kentucky  (Mr.  Clay)  is  deeply  penetrated  with  a 
sense  of  injury  to  himself,  the  committee  of  thirteen,  and  the  senate, 
from  what  I  said  yesterday.  He  characterizes  it  as  an  aspersion  upon 
them.  In  that  he  turns  off  the  contest  from  the  true  point.  I  made  no 
allusion  to  him,  or  the  committee.  I  spoke  of  their  bill — their  omnibus 
bill — and  its  effect — its  shocking,  revolting  effect.  I  struck  there,  and 
I  challenge  a  contest  there.         *  #  # 

"  I  said  that  those  who  were  anxious  for  the  passage  of  the  whole  con- 
glomerated measure,  must,  upon  every  principle  of  human  action,  vote 
the  sum  necessary  to  command  the  Texas  vote — vote  the  millions  so 
carefully  concealed  here,  and  so  well  known  elsewhere.  It  can  not  be  a 
question  with  them  how  much  it  was  right  and  proper  to  pay  to  Texas, 
but  how  much  will  command  the  vote  of  Texas  ?  To  secure  the  vote 
of  Texas  on  this  floor  is  what  they  are  obliged  to  do  on  every  principle 
of  human  action.  This  is  certainly  voting  on  a  vicious  principle.  *  *  * 
I  admit  that,  by  voting  to  put  nothing  there,  I  am  voting  viciously. 
But  where  lies  the  blame  ?  It  lies  in  the  position  that  I  am  forced  to 
take,  in  the  false  position  in  which  I  am  placed,  where  I  must  vote 
money  to  a  third  party  in  order  to  carry  a  measure  for  three  other  par- 
ties ;  I  must  either  sanction  a  great  parliamentary  enormity,  or  rebuke 
it.  I  will  not  bring  in  California  by  money  to  Texas.  I  will  not  vote 
the  money.  I  will  not  bid.  I  shall  vote  not  a  farthing  to  Texas,  as 
well  because  she  gets  land  enough  without  money,  as  because  of  the  bill 
itself,  and  because  I  believe  purity  of  legislatiori  requires  such  a  bill  to 
receive  the  condemnation  of  the  senate  and  the  country.  I  shall  vote 
nothing.  And  then  what  a  scene  we  shall  have  in  the  American  senate. 
Some  voting  a  high  amount  to  carry  the  vote  of  Texas ;  some  voting  a 
low  amount  in  order  to  prevent  it.  That  is  the  position,  and  that  is  the 
scene  which  the  senate  will  exhibit;  real  jockey  voting,  to  command  two 
votes,  and  without  the  least  regard  to  the  amount  that  ought  really  to 
be  voted;  no  party  having  any  regard  to  what  in  justice  and  right 
should  be  paid  to  Texas.  And  why  all  this  ?  Because  of  unparliamen- 
tary tacking ;  because  of  putting  incongruous  measures  together.'^ 


910  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

In  the  midst  of  the  discussion  of  this  question,  the  death  of  President 
Taylor  took  place.  This  event  occurred  on  the  9th  of  July,  1850,  a 
year  and  four  months  after  his  inauguration.  The  shock  upon  the  pub- 
lic mind  produced  by  this  sudden  calamity,  was  similar  to  that  experi- 
enced in  1841,  on  the  occasion  of  the  death  of  President  Harrison. 
Expressions  of  sincere  and  deep  regret  from  all  parts  of  the  union,  bore 
testimony  to  the  high  estimation  in  which  Gen.  Taylor  was  held  by  all 
parties  and  all  classes  of  the  people.  On  the  1 0th,  Mr.  Fillmore,  in  a  mes-- 
sage  to  both  houses  of  congress,  and  in  appropriate  terms,  announced  the 
death  of  the  president,  and  proposed  to  take  the  oath  of  office  as  presi- 
dent that  day  at  12  o'clock,  in  the  presence  of  both  houses  of  congress. 
Brief  eulogies  on  the  late  president  were  pronounced  in  the  senate  by 
Messrs.  Downs,  of  Louisiana,  Webster,  Cass,  Pearce,  of  Maryland,  King, 
of  Alabama,  and  Berrien,  of  Georgia.  In  the  house,  the  same  office  was 
performed  by  Messrs.  Conrad,  of  Louisiana,  Winthrop,  Baker,  of  Illi- 
nois, Bayly,  of  Virginia,  Hilliard,  of  Alabama,  John  A.  King,  of  New 
York,  McLane,  of  Maryland,  and  Humphrey  Marshall,  of  Kentucky. 

The  remains  of  Gen.  Taylor  were  interred  in  the  congressional  burial 
ground  at  Washington.  They  were  subsequently  taken  up  and  conveyed 
to  Louisville,  Kentucky ;  and  thence  to  the  place  of  their  final  inter- 
ment, seven  miles  from  the  city,  which  had  been  selected  by  himself  as  a 
family  burial  place.  It  is  upon  a  farm  formerly  owned  by  his  father, 
and  still  owned  by  the  heirs  of  his  deceased  brother,  Hancock  Tay- 
lor, Esq. 

Mr.  Fillmore  having  become  president,  Mr.  King,  of  Alabama,  was 
chosen  president  of  the  senate,  pro  tern.,  July  11th. 

A  few  days  afterward,  Mr.  Fillmore  reconstructed  the  cabinet.  Daniel 
Webster  was  appointed  secretary  of  state ;  Thomas  Corwin,  of  Ohio, 
secretary  of  the  treasury ;  Charles  M.  Conrad,  of  Louisiana,  secretary 
of  war ;  William  A.  Graham,  secretary  of  the  navy  ;  Alexander  H.  H. 
Stuart,  of  Pennsylvania,  secretary  of  the  interior;  Nathan  K.  Hall,  of 
New  York,  postmaster-general ;  John  J.  Crittenden,  of  Kentucky, 
attorney-general. 

The  passage  of  the  Texan  boundary  bill  was  accelerated  by  a  mes- 
sage from  the  president,  (August  6th,)  transmitting  to  the  senate  a  copy 
of  a  letter  from  Governor  Bell,  of  Texas,  addressed  to  the  late  president, 
complaining  that  the  state  commissioner,  in  attempting  to  extend  civil 
jurisdiction  over  the  unorganized  counties,  had  encountered  opposition 
from  the  military  officers  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States, 
stationed  at  Santa  Fe.  And  he  wished  to  be  informed  whether  the  issu- 
ing of  a  proclamation  by  Col.  John  Monroe,  the  civil  and  military  com- 
mander of  the  territory,  had  been  done  under  the  orders  of  the  govern- 


PASSAGE   OF    COMPROMISE   BILLS.  911 

meDt,  or  with  the  approval  of  the  president.  Gov.  Bell  was  informed 
that,  in  November,  orders  had  been  given  not  to  thwart  any  manifesta- 
tions of  the  people  of  New  Mexico  in  favor  of  forming  a  state  constitu- 
tion. Such  action  was  a  mere  nullity  until  sanctioned  by  congress,  and 
whether  approved  by  congress  or  not,  it  could  not  prejudice  the  territo- 
rial claims  of  Texas.  The  late  president,  it  was  believed,  had  desired 
to  manifest  no  unfriendly  attitude  or  aspect  towards  Texas  or  her  claims ; 
and  the  present  executive  certainly  did  not  wish  to  interfere  with  that 
question,  as  a  question  of  title. 

In  his  message  of  the  6th  of  August,  the  president  declares  his  deter- 
mination to  maintain  the  existing  order  of  things  in  New  Mexico.  He 
would  protect  the  inhabitants  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  liberty  and 
property,  within  the  territory  possessed  and  occupied  by  them  as  New 
Mexico  at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  until  a  definite  boundary  should  be 
established.  And  he  recommended  to  congress  a  speedy  settlement  of 
the  question  of  boundary. 

On  the  13th  of  August,  the  governor,  in  his  message  to  the  legisla- 
ture, which  he  had  convened  in  extra  session,  expressed  his  repugnance 
to  any  compromise  of  the  boundary  of  Texas  on  the  part  of  congress, 
without  her  consent,  and  evinced  a  disposition  to  resist  by  force  any 
infringement  of  her  territorial  rights.  The  people  of  the  state  appear- 
ing determined  to  stand  by  their  executive,  a  collision  between  the  two 
powers,  state  and  federal,  was  for  a  short  time  apprehended. 

A  few  days  after  the  passage  of  the  Utah  territorial  bill,  Mr.  Pearce, 
on  the  5th  of  August,  introduced  into  the  senate  a  bill  defining  the 
boundaries  of  the  state,  ceding  to  the  United  States  all  her  claim  to  ter- 
ritory exterior  to  these  boundaries,  and  relinquishing  all  claims  upon  the 
United  States  for  liability  for  the  de]>ts  of  Texas,  and  for  compensation 
or  indemnity  for  the  surrender  of  her  ships,  forts,  custom-houses,  reve- 
nue, and  other  public  property ;  in  consideration  of  all  of  which  the 
United  States  agreed  to  pay  $10,000,000.  The  existing  crisis  demanded 
prompt  action ;  and  the  bill  was  passed  by  the  two  houses  on  the  days 
and  in  the  manner  already  stated. 

The  passage  of  the  Utah  territorial  bill — all  that  remained  of  the 
"  omnibus"  bill — on  the  last  day  of  July,  and  the  subsequent  passage, 
separately,  of  its  other  parts,  have  been  mentioned.  The  Texas  bound- 
ary bill  passed  the  senate  the  10th  of  August,  by  a  vote  of  30  to  20  ; 
and  on  the  14th,  the  bill  to  organize  the  territory  of  New  Mexico  passed 
the  same  body,  27  to  10.  In  the  house  these  two  bills  were  united,  and 
passed  September  Gth,  107  to  97;  and  in  this  action  of  the  house,  the 
senate  concurred.  Before  the  passage  of  the  bill,  however,  a  proviso 
was  added,  that  nothing  in  the  bill  should  impair  the  joint  resolution  of 


912  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

1845  for  annexing  Texas  "  either  as  regards  the  number  of  states  that 
might  be  formed  out  of  the  state  of  Texas,  or  otherwise." 

The  bill  to  admit  California  as  a  state,  passed  the  senate,  August  13th, 
34  to  18 ;  the  house,  September  17th,  150  to  56. 

The  fugitive  slave  bill  passed  the  senate  August  23d,  by  a  vote  of  27 
to  12.  In  the  house,  the  bill  was  passed  under  the  action  of  the  pre- 
vious question,  without  debate,  109  to  75. 

The  remaining  bill  was  that  for  abolishing  the  slave  trade  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia ;  for  which  Mr.  Seward  proposed  a  substitute  abolish- 
ing slavery  itself  in  the  district.  The  proposition,  after  a  speech  in  its 
favor,  was  rejected;  ayes,  5  ;  noes,  46.  On  the  14th  of  September,  the 
bill  passed  the  senate,  33  to  19  ;  and  on  the  17th  it  passed  the  house, 
124  to  59. 

The  debates  upon  these  bills,  especially  the  fugitive  slave  bill,  in  both 
houses,  were  animated  and  of  great  interest ;  but  the  appropriation  of 
the  liberal  space  already  assigned  to  this  discussion,  forbids  its  farther 
extension. 

The  compromise  acts  were  the  principal  measures  adopted  at  this  very 
long  session.  At  the  next  session,  also,  (1850-51,)  although  several 
important  measures  in  both  houses  made  considerable  progress,  few 
of  them  became  laws.  Perhaps  the  act  of  the  most  general  interest  was 
the  existing  postage  law,  reducing  the  rates  of  postage  to  three  cents  on 
prepaid  single  letters,  for  a  distance  of  3,000  miles,  and  five  cents  if  not 
prepaid ;  and  double  these  rates  for  any  greater  distance. 


CHAPTEK  LXXIII. 


AND    CASS. 

In  the  senate,  on  the  11th  of  March,  1850,  the  president's  message 
transmitting  the  constitution  of  the  state  of  California  being  under  con- 
sideration, Mr.  Seward  addressed  the  senate  in  a  speech  of  about  three 
hours.  As  Mr.  S.  touched  upon  all  the  principal  topics  embraced  in 
the  general  question  of  slavery  as  presented  at  this  session,  and  as  the 
subject  is  one  of  immense  and  lasting  importance  to  the  union,  it  is 
thought  proper  to  transfer  to  our  pages  a  large  portion  of  the  speech,  as 
follows : — 


ADMISSION   OF    CALIFORNIA.  913 

Shall  California  be  received  ?  For  myself,  upon  my  individual 
judgment  and  conscience,  I  answer,  Yes.  For  myself,  as  an  instructed 
representative  of  one  of  the  states,  of  that  one  even  of  the  states  which 
is  soonest  and  longest  to  be  pressed  in  commercial  and  political  rivalry 
by  the  new  commonwealth,  I  answer.  Yes.  Let  California  come  in. 
Every  new  state,  whether  she  come  from  the  east  or  from  the  west, 
every  new  state,  coming  from  whatever  part  of  the  continent  she  may,  is 
always  welcome.  But  California,  that  comes  from  the  clime  where  the 
west  dies  away  into  the  rising  east ;  California,  that  bounds  at  once  the 
empire  and  the  continent ;  California,  the  youthful  queen  of  the  Pacific, 
in  her  robes  of  freedom,  gorgeously  inlaid  with  gold — is  doubly  welcome. 

And  now  I  inquire,  first,  Why  should  California  be  rejected  ?  All 
the  objections  are  founded  only  in  the  circumstances  of  her  coming,  and 
in  the  organic  law  which  she  presents  for  our  confirmation. 

1st.  California  comes  unceremoniously,  without  a  preliminary  con- 
sent of  congress,  and  therefore  by  usurpation.  This  allegation,  I  think, 
is  not  quite  true  ;  at  least,  not  quite  true  in  spirit.  California  is  here 
not  of  her  own  pure  volition.  We  tore  California  and  New  Mexico 
violently  from  their  places  in  the  confederation  of  Mexican  states,  and 
stipulated,  by  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  that  the  territories  thus 
acquired  should  be  admitted  as  states  into  the  American  union  as 
speedily  as  possible.  But  the  letter  of  the  objection  still  holds.  Cali- 
fornia does  come  without  having  obtained  a  preliminary  consent  of  con- 
gress to  form  a  constitution.  But  Michigan  and  other  states  presented 
themselves  in.  the  same  unauthorized  way,  and  congress  waived  the 
irregularity^  and  sanctioned  the  usurpation.  California  pleads  these 
precedents.     Is  not  the  plea  sufficient  ? 

But  it  has  been  said  by  the  honorable  senator  from  South  Carolina, 
(Mr.  Calhoun,)  that  the  ordinance  of  1787  secured  to  Michigan  the 
right  to  become  a  state,  when  she  should  have  sixty  thousand  in- 
habitants, and  that,  owing  to  some  neglect,  congress  delayed  taking  the 
census.  This  is  said  in  palliation  of  the  irregularity  of  Michigan.  But 
California,  as  has  been  seen,  had  a  treaty,  and  congress,  instead  of 
giving  previous  consent,  and  instead  of  giving  her  the  customary  terri- 
torial government,  as  they  did  to  Michigan,  failed  to  do  either,  and  thus 
practically  refused  both,  and  so  abandoned  the  new  community,  under 
most  unpropitious  circumstances,  to  anarchy.  California  then  made  a 
constitution  for  herself,  but  not  unnecessarily  and  presumptuously,  as 
Michigan  did.  She  made  a  constitution  for  herself,  and  she  comes 
here  under  the  law,  the  paramount  law,  of  self-preservation. 

In  that  she  stands  justified.  Indeed,  California  is  more  than  justified. 
She  was  a  colony^  a  military  colony.     All  colonies,  especially  military 

t)0 


914  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

colonies,  are  incongruous  with  our  political  system,  and  they  are  equally 
open  to  corruption  and  exposed  to  oppression.  They  are,  therefore,  not 
more  unfortunate  in  their  own  proper  condition  than  fruitful  of  dangers 
to  the  parent  democracy.  California,  then,  acted  wisely  and  well  in 
establishin""  self-government.  She  deserves  not  rebuke,  but  praise  and 
approbation.  Nor  does  this  objection  come  w^ith  a  good  grace  from  those 
who  offer  it.  If  California  were  now  content  to  receive  only  a  territorial 
charter,  we  could  not  agree  to  grant  it  without  an  inhibition  of  slavery, 
which,  in  that  case,  being  a  federal  act,  would  render  the  attitude  of 
California,  as  a  territory,  even  more  offensive  to  those  who  now  repel  her 
than  she  is  as  a  state,  with  the  same  inhibition  in  the  constitution  of  her 
own  voluntary  choice. 

A  second  objection  is,  that  California  has  assigned  her  own  bounda- 
ries without  the  previous  authority  of  congress.  But  she  was  left  to 
organize  herself  without  any  boundaries  fixed  by  previous  law  or  by  pre- 
scription. She  was  obliged,  therefore,  to  assume  boundaries,  since  with- 
out boundaries  she  must  have  remailied  unorganized. 

A  third  objection  is,  that  California  is  too  large.  I  answer,  first, 
there  is  no  common  standard  of  states.  Californir,,  although  greater 
than  many,  is  less  than  one  of  the  states.  Secondly.  California,  if  too 
large,  may  be  divided  with  her  own  consent,  and  a  similar  provision  is 
all  the  security  we  have  for  reducing  the  magnitude  and  averting  the 
preponderance  of  Texas.  Thirdly.  The  boundaries  of  California  seem 
not  at  all  unnatural.  The  territory  circumscribed  is  altogether  con- 
tiguous and  compact.  Fourthly.  The  boundaries  are  convenient.  They 
embrace  only  inhabited  portions  of  the  country,  commercially  connected 
with  the  port  of  San  Francisco.  No  one  has  pretended  to  offer  boun- 
daries more  in  harmony  with  the  physical  outlines  of  the  region  con- 
cerned, or  more  convenient  for  civil  administration. 

But  to  draw  closer  to  the  question,  What  shall  be  the  boundaries  of 
a  new  state  ?  concerns — 

First.  The  state  herself;  and  California,  of  course,  is  content. 

Secondly.  Adjacent  communities ;  Oregon  does  not  complain  of  en- 
croachment, and  there  is  no  other  adjacent  community  to  complain. 

Thirdly.  The  other  states  of  the  union  ;  the  larger  the  Pacific  states, 
the  smaller  will  be  their  relative  power  in  the  senate.  All  the  states 
now  here  are  either  Atlantic  states  or  inland  states,  and  surely  they  may 
well  indulge  California  in  the  largest  liberty  of  boundaries. 

The  fourth  objection  to  the  admission  of  California  is,  that  no  census 
had  been  taken,  and  no  laws  prescribing  the  qualifications  of  suffrage  and 
the  apportionment  of  representatives  in  convention,  existed  before  her 
convention  was  held.     I  answer,  California  was  left  to  act  ahdnitio 


ADMISSION    OF    CALIFORNIA.  915 

She  must  begin  somewhere,  without  a  census,  and  without  such  laws. 
The  pilgrim  fathers  began  in  the  same  way  on  board  the  Mayflower ; 
and,  since  it  has  been  objected  that  some  of  the  electors  in  California 
may  have  been  aliens,  I  add,  that  all  of  the  pilgrim  fathers  were  aliens 
and  strangers  to  the  commonwealth  of  Plymouth. 

Again,  the  objection  may  well  be  waived^  if  the  constitution  of  Cali- 
fornia is  satisfactory,  first  to  herself,  secondly  to  the  United  States. 

Not  a  murmur  of  discontent  has  followed  California  to  this  place. 

As  to  ourselves,  we  confine  our  inquiries  about  the  constitution  of  a 
new  state  to  four  things — 

1st.  Tho  boundaries  assumed;  and  I  have  considered  that  point  in 
this  case  already. 

2d.  That  the  domain  within  the  state  is  secured  to  us ;  and  it  is  ad* 
mitted  that  this  has  been  properly  done. 

3d.  That  the  constitution  shall  be  republican,  and  not  aristocratic  and 
monarchical.  In  this  case,  the  only  objection  is,  that  the  constitution, 
inasmuch  as  it  inhibits  slavery,  is  altogether  too  republican. 

4th.  That  the  representation  claimed  shall  be  just  and  equal.  No 
one  denies  that  the  population  of  California  is  sufficient  to  demand  two 
representatives  on  the  federal  basis ;  and,  secondly,  a  new  census  is  at 
hand,  and  the  error,  if  there  is  one,  will  be  immediately  corrected. 

The  fifth  objection  is,  that  California  comes  under  executive  influ- 
ence.    1st.  In  her  coming  as  a  free  state.     2d.  In  her  coming  at  all. 

The  first  charge  rests  on  suspicion  only,  and  is  peremptorily  denied, 
and  the  denial  is  not  controverted  by  proofs.  I  dismiss  it  altogether. 
The  second  is  true,  to  the  extent  that  the  president  advised  the  people 
of  California,  that,  having  been  left  without  any  civil  government,  under 
the  military  supervision  of  the  executive,  without  any  authority  of  law 
whatever,  their  adoption  of  a  constitution,  subject  to  the  approval  of 
congress,  would  be  regarded  favorably  by  the  president.  Only  a  year 
ago,  it  was  complained  that  the  exercise  of  the  military  power  to  main- 
tain law  and  order  in  California,  was  a  fearful  innovation.  But  now  the 
wind  has  changed,  and  blows  even  stronger  from  the  opposite  quarter. 
May  this  republic  never  have  a  president  commit  a  more  serious  or  more 
dangerous  usurpation  of  power  than  the  act  of  the  present  eminent  chief 
magistrate,  in  endeavoring  to  induce  legislative  authority  to  relieve  hira 
from  the  exercise  of  military  power,  by  establishing  civil  institutions 
regulated  by  law  in  distant  provinces  !  Rome  would  have  been  stand- 
ing this  day,  if  she  had  had  only  such  generals  and  such  consuls. 

But  the  objection,  whether  true  in  part,  or  even  in  the  whole,  is  im- 
material. The  question  is,  not  what  moved  California  to  impress  any 
particular  feature  on  her  constitution,  nor  even  what  induced  her  to 


916  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

adopt  a  constitution  at  all ;  but  it  is  whether,  since  she  has  adopted  a 
constitution,  she  shall  be  admitted  into  the  union. 

I  have  now  reviewed  all  the  objections  raised  against  the  admission 
of  California.  It  is  seen  that  they  have  no  foundation  in  the  law  of 
nature  and  of  nations.  Nor  are  they  founded  in  the  constitution,  for 
the  constitution  prescribes  no  form  or  manner  of  proceeding  in  the  ad- 
mission of  new  states,  but  leaves  the  whole  to  the  discretion  of  congress. 
"  Congress  may  admit  new  states."  The  objections  are  all  merely 
formal  and  technical.  They  rest  on  precedents  which  have  not  always, 
nor  even  generally,  been  observed.  But  it  is  said  that  we  ought  now 
to  establish  a  safe  precedent  for  the  future. 

I  answer,  1st :  It  is  too  late  to  seize  this  occasion  for  that  purpose. 
The  irregularities  complained  of  being  unavoidable,  the  caution  should 
have  been  exercised  when,  1st,  Texas  was  annexed ;  2d,  when  we  waged 
war  against  Mexico  ;  or,  3d,  when  we  ratified  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe 
Hidalgo. 

I  answer,  2d  :  We  may  establish  precedents  at  pleasure.  Our  suc- 
cessors will  exercise  ^/ieir  pleasure  about  following  them,  just  as  we  have 
done  in  such  cases. 

I  answer,  3d :  States,  nations,  and  empires,-  are  apt  to  be  peculiarly 
capricious,  not  only  as  to  the  time^  but  even  as  to  the  manner^  of  their 
being  born,  and  as  to  their  subsequent  political  changes.  They  are  not 
accustomed  to  conform  to  precedents.  California  sprang  from  the  head 
of  the  nation,  not  only  complete  in  proportions  and  full  armed,  but  ripe 
for  affiliation  with  its  members.  #  #  # 

But  it  is  insisted  that  the  admission  of  California  shall  be  attended 
by  a  compromise  of  questions  which  have  arisen  out  of  slavery  ! 

I  am  opposed  to  any  such  compromise^  in  any  and  all  the  forms  in 
which  it  has  been  proposed ;  because,  while  admitting  the  purity  and 
the  patriotism  of  all  from  whom  it  is  my  misfortune  to  differ,  I  think 
all  legislative  compromises,  which  are  not  absolutely  necessary,  radi- 
cally wrong  and  essentially  vicious.  They  involve  the  surrender  of  the 
exercise  of  judgment  and  conscience  on  distinct  and  separate  questions, 
at  distinct  and  separate  times,  with  the  indispensable  advantages  it 
affords  for  ascertaining  truth.  They  involve  a  relinquishment  of  the 
right  to  reconsider  in  future  the  decisions  of  the  present,  on  questions 
prematurely  anticipated.  And  they  are  acts  of  usurpation  as  to  future 
questions  of  the  province  of  future  legislators. 

Sir,  it  seems  to  me  as  if  slavery  had  laid  its  paralyzing  hand  upon 
myself,  and  the  blood  were  coursing  less  freely  than  its  wont  through 
my  veins,  when  I  endeavor  to  suppose  that  such  a  compromise  has  been 
effected,  and  that  my  utterance  for  ever  is  arrested  upon  all  the  great 


ADMISSION    OF    CALIFORNl  i  917 

questions — social,  moral,  and  political — arising  out  of  a  subject  so  im- 
portant, and  as  yet  so  incomprehensible. 

What  am  I  to  receive  in  this  compromise  ?  Freedom  in  California. 
It  is  well ;  it  is  a  noble  acquisition ;  it  is  worth  a  sacrifice.  But  what 
am  I  to  give  as  an  equivalent  ?  A  recognition  of  the  claim  to  perpe- 
tuate slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia;  forbearance  toward  more 
stringent  laws  concerning  the  arrest  of  persons  suspected  of  being  slaves 
found  in  the  free  states  ;  forbearance  from  the  proviso  of  freedom  in  the 
charters  of  new  territories.  None  of  the  plans  of  compromise  offered 
demand  less  than  two,  and  most  of  them  insist  on  all  of  these  conditions. 
The  equivalent,  then,  is,  some  portion  of  liberty,  some  portion  of  human 
rights  in  one  region  for  liberty  in  another  region.  But  California  brings 
gold  and  commerce  as  well  as  freedom.  I  am,  then,  to  surrender  some 
portion  of  human  freedom  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  in  East 
California  and  New  Mexico,  for  the  mixed  consideration  of  liberty,  gold, 
and  power,  on  the  Pacific  coast.  *         #         * 

But,  sir,  if  I  could  overcome  my  repugnance  to  compromises  in  general, 
I  should  object  to  this  one,  on  the  ground  of  the  inequality  and  incon- 
gruity of  the  interests  to  be  compromised.  Why,  sir,  according  to  the 
views  I  have  submitted,  California  ought  to  come  in,  and  must  come  in, 
whether  slavery  stand  or  fall  in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  whether 
slavery  stand  or  fall  in  New  Mexico  and  Eastern  California ;  and  even 
whether  slavery  stand  or  fall  in  the  slave  states.  California  ought  to 
come  in,  being  a  free  state;  and,  under  the  circumstances  of  her  con- 
quest, her  compact,  her  abandonment,  her  justifiable  and  necessary 
establishment  of  a  constitution,  and  the  inevitable  dismemberment  of  the 
empire  consequent  upon  her  rejection,  I  should  have  voted  for  her  ad- 
mission even  if  she  had  come  as  a  slave  state.  California  ought  to  come 
in,  and  must  come  in  at  all  events.  It  is,  then,  an  independent,  a  para- 
mount question.  What,  then,  are  these  questions  arising  out  of  slavery, 
thus  interposed,  but  collateral  questions  ?  They  are  unnecessary  and 
incongruous,  and  therefore  false  issues,  not  introduced  designedly,  indeed, 
to  defeat  that  great  policy,  yet  unavoidably  tending  to  that  end. 

Mr.  FooTE.  Will  the  honorable  senator  allow  me  to  ask  him,  if  the 
senate  is  to  understand  him  as  saying  that  he  would  vote  for  the  admis- 
sion of  California  if  she  came  here  seeking  admission  as  a  slave  state  ? 

Mr.  Seward.  I  reply,  as  I  said  before,  that  even  if  California  had 
come  as  a  slave  state,  yet  coming  under  the  extraordinary  circumstances 
I  have  described,  and  in  view  of  the  consequences  of  a  dismemberment 
of  the  empire,  consequent  upon  her  rejection,  I  should  have  voted  for 
her  admission,  even  though  she  had  come  as  a  slave  state.  But  I  should 
not  have  voted  for  her  admission  otherwise. 


918  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

I  remark  in  the  next  place,  that  consent  on  my  part  would  be  disin- 
genuous and  fraudulent,  because  the  compromise  would  be  unavailing. 

It  is  now  avowed  by  the  honorable  senator  from  South  Carolina,  (Mr. 
Calhoun,)  that  nothing  will  satisfy  the  slave  states  but  a  compromise 
that  will  convince  them  that  they  can  remain  in  the  union  consistently 
with  their  honor  and  their  safety.  And  what  are  the  concessions  which 
will  have  that  effect  ?     Here  they  are,  in  the  words  of  that  senator : — 

"  The  North  must  do  justice  by  conceding  to  the  South  an  equal  right 
in  the  acquired  territory,  and  do  her  duty  by  causing  the  stipulations 
relative  to  fugitive  slaves  to  be  faithfully  fulfilled — cease  the  agitation 
of  the  slave  question — and  provide  for  the  insertion  of  a  provision  in 
the  constitution,  by  an  amendment,  which  will  restore  to  the  South  in 
substance  the  power  she  possessed,  of  protecting  herself,  before  the 
equilibrium  between  the  sections  was  destroyed  by  the  action  of  this 
government." 

These  terms  amount  to  this  :  that  the  free  states  having  already,  or 
although  they  may  hereafter  have,  majorities  of  population,  and  majori- 
ties in  both  houses  of  congress,  shall  concede  to  the  slave  states,  being 
in  a  minority  in  both,  the  unequal  advantage  of  an  equality.  That  is, 
that  we  shall  alter  the  constitution  so  as  to  convert  the  government  from 
a  national  democracy,  operating  by  a  constitutional  majority  of  voices, 
into  a  federal  alliance,  in  which  the  minority  shall  have  a  veto  against 
the  majority.  And  this  would  be  nothing  less  than  to  return  to  the 
original  articles  of  confederation.  *  *  * 

Nor  would  success  attend  any  of  the  details  of  this  compromise.  And, 
first,  I  advert  to  the  proposed  alteration  of  the  law  concerning  fugitives 
from  service  or  labor.  I  shall  speak  on  this,  as  on  all  subjects,  with 
due  respect,  but  yet  frankly,  and  without  reservation.  The  constitu- 
tion contains  only  a  compact,  which  rests  for  its  execution  on  the  states. 
Not  content  with  this,  the  slave  states  induced  legislation  by  congress ; 
and  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  have  virtually  decided  that 
the  whole  subject  is  within  the  province  of  congress,  and  exclusive  of 
state  authority.  Nay,  they  have  decided  that  slaves  are  to  be  regarded, 
not  merely  as  persons  to  be  claimed,  but  as  property  and  chattels,  to  be 
seized  without  any  legal  authority  or  claim  whatever.  The  compact  is 
thus  subverted  by  the  procurement  of  the  slave  states.  With  what 
reason,  then,  can  they  expect  the  states  ex  gratia  to  reassume  the  obli- 
gations from  which  they  caused  those  states  to  be  discharged  ?  I  say, 
then,  to  the  slave  states,  you  are  entitled  to  no  more  stringent  laws ; 
and  that  such  laws  would  be  useless.  The  cause  of  the  inefl&ciency  of 
the  present  statute  is  not  at  all  the  leniency  of  its  provisions.  It  is  a 
law  that  deprives  the  alleged  refugee  from  a  legal  obligation  not  assumed 


ADMISSION    OF    CALIFORNIA.  919 

by  him,  but  imposed  upon  him  by  laws  enacted  before  he  was  born,  of 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus^  and  of  any  certain  judicial  process  of  examina' 
tion  of  the  claim  set  up  by  his  pursuer,  and  finally  degrades  him  into  a 
chattel  which  may  be  seized  and  carried  away  peaceably  wherever  found, 
even  although  exercising  the  rights  and  responsibilities  of  a  free  citizen 
of  the  commonwealth  in  which  he  resides,  and  of  the  United  States — a 
law  which  denies  to  the  citizen  all  the  safeguards  of  personal  liberty,  to 
render  less  frequent  the  escape  of  the  bondman.  And  since  complaints 
are  so  freely  made  against  the  one  side,  I  shall  not  hesitate  to  declare 
that  there  have  been  even  greater  faults  on  the  other  side.  Relying  on 
the  perversion  of  the  constitution  which  makes  slaves  mere  chattels,  the 
slave  states  have  applied  to  them  the  principles  of  the  criminal  law,  and 
have  held  that  he  who  aided  the  escape  of  his  fellow-man  from  bondage 
was  guilty  of  a  larceny  in  stealing  him.  I  speak  of  what  I  know.  Two 
instances  came  within  my  own  knowledge,  in  which  governors  of  slave 
states,  under  the  provision  of  the  constitution  relating  to  fugitives  from 
justice,  demanded  from  the  governor  of  a  free  state  the  surrender  of  per- 
sons as  thieves  whose  alleged  offenses  consisted  in  constructive  larceny 
of  the  rags  that  covered  the  persons  of  female  slaves,  whose  attempt  at 
escape  they  permitted  or  assisted. 

We  deem  the  principle  of  the  law  for  the  recapture  of  fugitives,  as 
thus  expounded,  therefore,  unjust,  unconstitutional,  and  immoral ;  and 
thus,  while  patriotism  withholds  its  approbation,  the  consciences  of  our 
people  condemn  it.  *   .  *  * 

Another  feature  in  most  of  these  plans  of  compromise  is  a  bill  of 
peace  for  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ;  and  this  bill  of  peace  we 
cannot  grant.  We  of  the  free  states  are,  equally  with  you  of  the  slave 
states,  responsible  for  the  existence  of  slavery  in  this  district,  the  field 
exclusively  of  our  common  legislation.  I  regret  that,  as  yet,  I  see  little 
reason  to  hope  that  a  majority  in  favor  of  emancipation  exists  here.  The 
legislature  of  New  York — from  whom,  with  great  deference,  I  dissent — 
seems  willing  to  accept  now  the  extinction  of  the  slave  trade,  and  waive 
emancipation.  But  we  shall  assume  the  whole  responsibility,  if  we 
stipulate  not  to  exercise  the  power  hereafter  when  a  majority  shall  be 
obtained.  Nor  will  the  plea  with  which  you  would  furnish  us  be  of  any 
avail.  If  I  could  understand  so  mysterious  a  paradox  myself,  I  never 
should  be  able  to  explain,  to  the  apprehension  of  the  people  whom  I 
represent,  how  it  was  that  an  absolute  and  express  power  to  legislate  in 
all  cases  over  the  District  of  Columbia,  was  embarrassed  and  defeated 
by  an  implied  condition  not  to  legislate  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in 
this  district.  Sir,  T  shall  vote  for  that  measure,  and  am  willing  to  ap- 
propriate any  means  necessary  to  carry  it  into  execution.     And,  if  I 


920  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

shall  be  asked  what  I  did  to  embellish  the  capital  of  my  country,  I  will 
point  to  her  freedmen,  and  say,  these  are  the  monuments  of  my  muni- 
ficence! #  #  * 

I  come  now  to  notice  the  suggested  compromise  of  the  houjidary  he- 
tween  Texas  and  New  Mexico.  This  is  a  judicial  question  in  its  nature, 
or  at  least  a  question  of  legal  right  and  title.  If  it  is  to  be  compro- 
mised at  all,  it  is  due  to  the  two  parties,  and  to  national  dignity  as  well 
as  to  justice,  that  it  be  kept  separate  from  compromises  proceeding  on 
the  ground  of  expediency,  and  be  settled  by  itself  alone. 

I  take  this  occasion  to  say,  that  while  I  do  not  intend  to  discuss  the 
questions  alluded  to  in  this  connection  by  the  honorable  and  distinguished 
senator  from  Massachusetts,  I  am  not  able  to  agree  with  him  in  regard 
to  the  alleged  obligation  of  congress  to  admit  four  new  slave  states,  to 
be  formed  in  the  state  of  Texas,  There  are  several  questions  arising 
out  of  that  subject,  upon  which  I  am  not  prepared  to  decide  now,  and 
which  I  desire  to  reserve  for  future  consideration.  One  of  these  is, 
whether  the  article  of  annexation  does  really  deprive  congress  of  the 
right  to  exercise  its  choice  in  regard  to  the  subdivision  of  Texas  into 
four  additional  states.  It  seems  to  me  by  no  means  so  plain  a  question 
as  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  assumed,  and  that  it  must  be  left  to 
remain  an  open  question,  as  it  is  a  great  question,  whether  congress  is 
not  a  party  whose  future  consent  is  necessary  to  the  formation  of  new 
states  out  of  Texas. 

Mr.  Webster.  Supposing  congress  to  have  the  authority  to  fix  the 
number,  and  time  of  election,  and  apportionment  of  representatives,  &c., 
the  question  is,  whether,  if  new  states  are  formed  out  of  Texas,  to  come 
into  this  union,  there  is  not  a  solemn  pledge  by  law  that  they  have  a 
right  to  come  in  as  slave  states  ? 

Mr.  Seward.  "When  the  states  are  once  formed,  they  have  the  right  to 
come  in  as  free  or  slave  states,  according  to  their  own  choice ;  but  what 
I  insist  is,  that  they  cannot  be  formed  at  all  without  the  consent  of 
congress,  to  be  hereafter  given,  which  consent  congress  is  not  obliged  to 
give.  But  I  pass  that  question  for  the  present,  and  proceed  to  say  that 
I  am  not  prepared  to  admit  that  the  article  of  the  annexation  of  Texas 
is  itself  constitutional.  I  find  no  authority  in  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  for  the  annexation  of  foreign  countries  by  a  resolution  of 
congress,  and  no  power  adequate  to  that  purpose  but  the  treaty-making 
power  of  the  president  and  the  senate.  Entertaining  this  view,  I  must 
insist  that  the  constitutionality  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  itself  shall 
be  cleared  up  before  I  can  agree  to  the  admission  of  any  new  states  to 
be  formed  within  Texas. 

Mr.  FooTE.     Did  I  not  hear  the  senator  observe  that  he  would  admit 


ADMISSION    OF    CALIFORNIA.  921 

California,  whether  slavery  was  or  was  not  precluded  from  these  terri- 
tories ? 

Mr.  Seward.  I  said  I  would  have  voted  for  the  admission  of  Cali- 
fornia even  as  a  slave  state,  under  the  extraordinary  circumstances 
which  I  have  before  distinctly  described.  I  say  that  now ;  but  I  say 
also,  that  before  I  would  agree  to  admit  any  more  states  from  Texas,  the 
circumstances  which  render  such  an  act  necessary  must  be  shown,  and 
must  be  such  as  to  determine  my  obligation  to  do  so ;  and  that  is  pre- 
cisely what  I  insist  cannot  be  settled  now.  It  must  be  left  for  those  to 
whom  the  responsibility  will  belong. 

Mr.  President,  I  understand,  and  I  am  happy  in  understanding,  that  I 
agree  with  the  honorable  senator  from  Massachusetts,  that  there  is  no 
obligation  upon  congress  to  admit  four  new  slave  states  out  of  Texas, 
but  that  congress  has  reserved  her  right  to  say  whether  those  states  shall 
be  formed  and  admitted  or  not.  I  shall  rely  on  that  reservation.  I 
shall  vote  to  admit  no  more  slave  states,  unless  under  circumstances 
absolutely  compulsory — and  no  such  case  is  ilow  foreseen. 

Mr.  Webster.  What  I  said  was,  that  if  the  states  hereafter  to  be 
made  out  of  Texas  choose  to  come  in  as  slave  states,  they  have  a  right 
so  to  do. 

Mr.  Seward.  My  position  is,  that  thay  have  not  a  right  to  come  in 
at  all,  if  congress  rejects  their  institutions.  The  subdivision  of  Texas 
is  a  matter  optional  with  both  parties,  Texas  and  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Webster.  Does  the  honorable  senator  mean  to  say  that  congress 
can  hereafter  decide  whether  they  shall  be  slave  or  free  states  ? 

Mr.  Seward.  I  mean  to  say  that  congress  can  hereafter  decide  whe- 
ther any  states,  slave  or  free,  can  be  framed  out  of  Texas.  If  they 
should  never  be  framed  out  of  Texas,  they  never  could  be  admitted. 

Another  objection  arises  out  of  the  principle  on  which  the  demand  for 
compromise  rests.  That  principle  assumes  a  classification  of  the  states 
as  northern  and  southern  states,  as  it  is  expressed  by  the  honorable 
senator  from  South  Carolina,  (Mr.  Calhoun,)  but  into  slave  states  and 
free  states,  as  more  directly  expressed  by  the  honorable  senator  from 
Georgia,  (Mr.  Berrien).  The  argument  is,  that  the  states  are  severally 
equal,  and  that  these  two  classes  were  equal  at  the  first,  and  that  the 
constitution  was  founded  on  that  equilibrium ;  that  the  states  being 
equal,  and  the  classes  of  the  states  being  equal  in  rights,  they  are  to  be 
regarded  as  constituting  an  association  in  which  each  state,  and  each  of 
these  classes  of  states,  respectively,  contribute  in  due  proportions ;  that 
the  new  territories  are  a  common  acquisition,  and  the  people  of  these 
several  states  and  classes  of  states  have  an  equal  right  to  participate 
m  them,  respectively  \  that  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  slave  states  to 


922  THE   AMERICAN   STATESMAN. 

emigrate  to  the  territories  with  their  slaves  as  property  is  necessary  to 
afford  such  a  participation  on  their  part,  inasmuch  as  the  people  of  the 
free  states  emigrate  into  the  same  territories  with  their  property.  And 
the  argument  deduces  from  this  right  the  principle  that,  if  congress  ex- 
clude slavery  from  any  part  of  this  new  domain,  it  would  be  only  just 
to  set  off  a  portion  of  the  domain — some  say  south  of  36  deg.  30  min., 
others  south  of  34  deg. — which  should  be  regarded  at  least  as  free  to 
slavery,  and  to  be  organized  into  slave  states. 

Argument  ingenious  and  subtle,  declamation  earnest  and  bold,  and 
persuasion  gentle  and  winning  as  the  voice  of  the  turtle  dove  when  it  is 
heard  in  the  land,  all  alike  and  altogether  have  failed  to  convince  me  of 
the  soundness  of  this  principle  of  the  proposed  compromise,  or  of  any 
one  of  the  propositions  on  which  it  is  attempted  to  be  established.  *  *  * 

The  constitution  does  not  ea;jore5s/y  affirm  anything  on  the  subject; 
all  that  it  contains  is  two  incidental  allusions  to  slaves.  These  are, 
first,  in  the  provision  establishing  a  ratio  of  representation  and  taxation ; 
and,  secondly,  in  the  provision  relating  to  fugitives  from  labor.  In  both 
cases,  the  constitution  designedly  mentions  slaves,  not  as  slaves,  much 
less  as  chattels,  but  as  persons.  That  this  recognition  of  them  as  per- 
sons was  designed  is  historically  known,  and  I  think  was  never  denied. 
I  give  only  two  of  the  manifold  proofs.  First,  John  Jay,  in  the  Fed- 
eralist, says : 

"  Let  the  case  of  the  slaVes  be  considered,  as  it  is  in  truth,  a  peculiar 
one.  Let  the  compromising  expedient  of  the  constitution  be  mutually 
adopted  which  regards  them  as  inhabitants,  but  as  debased  below  the 
equal  level  of  free  inhabitants,  which  regards  the  slave  as  divested  of 
two-fifths  of  the  man." 

Yes,  sir,  of  two-fifths,  but  of  only  two-fifths ;  leaving  still  three-fifths  ; 
leaving  the  slave  still  an  inhabitant,  a  person,  a  living,  breathing,  mov- 
ing, reasoning,  immortal  man. 

The  other  proof  is  from  the  debates  in  the  convention.  It  is  brief, 
and  I  think  instructive : 

"  August,  28,  1787. 
"  Mr.  Butler  and  Mr.  Pinckney  moved  to  require  fugitive  slaves  and 
servants  to  be  delivered  up  like  convicts. 

"  Mr.  Wilson.  This  would  oblige  the  executive  of  the  state  to  do 
it  at  public  expense. 

"  Mr.  Sherman  saw  no  more  propriety  in  the  public  seizing  and  sur- 
rendering a  slave  or  a  servant  than  a  horse. 

Mr.  Butler  withdrew  his  proposition,  in  order  that  some  particular 
provision  might  be  made,  apart  from  this  article." 


slavery  in  the  territories.  923 

"  August  29,  1787. 

"  Mr.  Butler  moved  to  insert  after  article  15  :  'If  any  person  bound 
to  service  or  labor  in  any  of  the  United  States  shall  escape  into  another 
state,  he  or  she  shall  not  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor  in 
consequence  of  any  regulation  subsisting  in  the  state  to  which  they 
escape,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  to  the  person  justly  claiming  their 
service  or  labor.' " 

"After  the  engrossment,  September  15,  page  550,  article  4,  section 
2,  the  third  paragraph,  the  term  '  legally  '  was  struck  out,  and  the  words 
*  under  the  laws  thereof  inserted  after  the  word  *  stale,'  in  compliance 
with  the  wishes  of  some  who  thought  the  term  *  legal '  equivocal,  and 
favoring  the  idea  that  slavery  was  legal  in  a  moral  viewy — Madison 
Debates,  pp.  487,  492. 

I  deem  it  established,  then,  that  the  constitution  does  not  recognize 
property  in  man,  but  leaves  that  question,  as  between  the  states,  to  the 
law  of  nature  and  of  nations.  That  law,  as  expounded  by  Yattel,  is 
founded  on  the  reason  of  things.  When  God  had  created  the  earth, 
with  its  wonderful  adaptations.  He  gave  dominion  over  it  to  man,  abso- 
lute human  dominion.  The  title  of  that  dominion,  thus  bestowed, 
would  have  been  incomplete,  if  the  Lord  of  all  terrestrial  things  could 
himself  have  been  the  property  of  his  fellow-man.         #         *         # 

But  there  is  yet  another  aspect  in  which  this  principle  must  be  ex- 
amined.' It  regards  the  domain  only  as  a  possession,  to  be  enjoyed 
either  in  common  or  by  partition  by  the  citizens  of  the  old  states.  It 
is  true,  indeed,  that  the  national  domain  is  ours.  It  is  true  it  was  ac- 
quired by  the  valor  and  with  the  wealth  of  the  whole  nation.  But  we 
hold  no  arbitrary  authority  over  it.  We  hold  no  arbitrary  authority 
over  anything,  whether  acquired  lawfully  or  seized  by  usurpation.  The 
constitution  regulates  our  stewardship ;  the  constitution  devotes  the  do- 
main to  union,  to  justice,  to  defense,  to  welfare,  and  to  liberty. 

But  there  is  a  higher  law  than  the  constitution,  which  regulates  our 
authority  over  the  domain,  and  devotes  it  to  the  same  noble  purposes. 
The  territory  is  a  part,  no  inconsiderable  part,  of  the  common  heritage 
of  mankind,  bestowed  upon  them  by  the  Creator  of  the  Universe.  We 
are  his  stewards,  and  must  so  discharge  our  trust  as  to  secure  in  the 
highest  attainable  degree  their  happiness.         *         #         * 

It  remains  only  to  remark  that  our  own  experience  has  proved  the 
dangerous  influence  and  tendency  of  slavery.  All  our  apprehensions  of 
dangers,  present  and  future,  begin  and  end  with  slavery.  If  slavery, 
limited  as  it  yet  is,  now  threatens  to  subvert  the  constitution,  how  can' 
we,  as  wise  and  prudent  statesmen,  enlarge  its  boundaries  and  increase 
its  influence  and  thus  increase  already  impendJ.ug  dangers?     Whether, 


924  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

then,  I  regard  merely  the  welfare  of  the  future  inhabitants  of  the  new 
territories,  or  the  security  and  welfare  of  the  whole  people  of  the  United 
States,  or  the  welfare  of  the  whole  family  of  mankind,  I  cannot  consent 
to  introduce  slavery  into  any  part  of  this  continent  which  is  now  exempt 
from  what  seems  to  me  so  great  an  evil.  These  are  my  reasons  for  de- 
clining to  compromise  the  question  relating  to  slavery  as  a  condition  of 
the  admission  of  California. 

In  acting  upon  an  occasion  so  grave  as  this,  a  respectful  considera- 
tion is  due  to  the  arguments^  founded  on  extraneous  considerations,  of 
senators  who  commend  a  course  different  from  that  which  I  have  pre- 
ferred. The  first  of  these  arguments  is,  that  congress  has  no  power  to 
legislate  on  the  subject  of  slavery  within  the  teritories. 

Sir,  congress  may  admit  new  states ;  and  since  congress  may  admit, 
it  follows  that  congress  may  reject  new  states.  The  discretion  of  con- 
gress in  admitting  is  absolute,  except  that,  when  admitted,  the  state 
must  be  a  republican  state,  and  must  be  a  state  :  that  is,  it  shall  have 
the  constitutional  form  and  powers  of  a  state.  But  the  greater  includes 
the  less,  and  therefore  congress  may  impose  conditions  of  admission  not 
inconsistent  with  those  fundamental  powers  and  forms.  Boundaries  are 
such.  The  reservation  of  the  public  domain  is  such.  The  right  to 
divide  is  such.  The  ordinance  excluding  slavery  is  such  a  condition. 
The  organization  of  a  territory  is  ancillary  or  preliminary;  it  is  the 
inchoate,  the  initiative  act  of  admission,  and  is  performed  under  the 
clause  granting  the  powers  necessary  to  execute  the  express  powers  of 
the  constitution. 

This  power  comes  from  the  treaty-making  power  also,  and  I  think 
it  well  traced  to  the  power  to  make  needful  rules  and  regulations  con- 
cerning the  public  domain.  But  this  question  is  not  a  material  one 
now ;  the  power  is  here  to  be  exercised.  The  question  now  is.  How  is 
it  to  be  exercised  ?  not  whether  we  shall  exercise  it  at  all,  however  de- 
rived. And  the  right  to  regulate  property,  to  administer  justice  in  re- 
gard to  property,  is  assumed  in  every  territorial  charter.  If  we  have 
the  power  to  legislate  concerning  property,  we  have  the  power  to  legis- 
late concerning  personal  rights.  Freedom  is  a  personal  right ;  and 
congress,  being  the  supreme  legislature,  has  the  same  right  in  regard  to 
property  and  personal  rights  in  territories  that  the  states  would  have  if 
organized. 

The  next  of  this  class  of  arguments  is,  that  the  inhibition  of  slavery 
in  the  new  territories  is  unnecessary  ;  and  when  I  come  to  this  question, 
I  encounter  the  loss  of  many  who  lead  in  favor  of  admitting  California. 
####### 

The  argument  is,  that  the  proviso  is  unnecessary.      I  answer,  then, 


SLAVERY   IN    THE    TERRITORIES.  925 

there  can  be  no  error  in  insisting  upon  it.  But  why  is  it  unnecessary  ? 
It  is  said,/7-5^,  by  reason  of  climate.  I  answer,  if  this  be  so,  why  do 
not  the  representatives  of  the  slave  states  concede  the  proviso  ?  They 
deny  that  the  climate  prevents  the  introduction  of  slavery.  Then  I  will 
leave  nothing  to  a  contingency.  But,  in  truth,  I  think  the  weight  of 
argument  is  against  the  proposition.  Is  there  any  climate  where  slavery 
has  not  existed  ?  It  has  prevailed  all  over  Europe,  from  sunny  Italy 
to  bleak  England,  and  is  existing  now,  stronger  than  in  any  other  land, 
in  ice-bound  Russia.  But  it  will  be  replied,  that  this  is  not  African 
slavery.  I  rejoin,  that  only  makes  the  case  the  stronger.  If  this  vigorous 
Saxon  race  of  ours  was  reduced  to  slavery  while  it  retained  the  courage 
of  semi-barbarism  in  its  own  high  northern  latitude,  what  security  does 
climate  afford  against  the  transplantation  of  the  more  gentle,  more 
docile,  and  already  enslaved  and  debased  African  to  the  genial  climate 
of  New  Mexico  and  Eastern  California  ? 

Sir,  there  is  no  climate  uncongenial  to  slavery.  It  is  true  it  is  less 
productive  than  free  labor  in  many  northern  countries.  But  so  it  is 
less  productive  than  free  white  labor  in  even  tropical  climates.  Labor 
is  in  quick  demand  in  all  new  countries.  Slave  labor  is  cheaper  than 
free  labor,  and  it  would  go  first  into  new  regions ;  and  wherever  it  goes 
it  brings  labor  into  dishonor,  and  therefore  free  white  labor  avoids  com- 
petition with  it.  Sir,  I  might  rely  on  climate  if  I  had  not  been  born  in 
a  land  where  slavery  existed — and  this  land  was  all  of  it  north  of  the 
fortieth  parallel  of  latitude ;  and  if  I  did  not  know  the  struggle  it  has 
cost,  and  which  is  yet  going  on,  to  get  complete  relief  from  the  institu- 
tion and  its  baleful  consequences.  I  desire  to  propound  this  question 
to  those  who  are  now  in  favor  of  dispensing  with  the  Wilmot  proviso  : 
Was  the  ordinance  of  1787  necessary  or  not?  Necessary,  we  all  agree. 
It  has  received  too  many  elaborate  eulogiums  to  be  now  decried  as  an 
idle  and  superfluous  thing.  And  yet  that  ordinance  extended  the  inhibi- 
tion of  slavery  from  the  thirty-seventh  to  the  fortieth  parallel  of  north 
latitude.  And  now  we  are  told  that  the  inhibition  named  is  unnecessary 
anywhere  north  of  36  deg.  30  min.  !  We  are  told  that  we  may  rely  upon 
the  laws  of  God,  which  prohibit  slave  labor  north  of  that  line,  and  that 
it  is  absurd  to  reenact  the  laws  of  God.  Sir,  there  is  no  human  enact- 
ment which  is  just  that  is  not  a  reenactment  of  the  law  of  God.  The 
constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  constitutions  of  all  the  states 
are  full  of  such  reenactments.  Wherever  I  find  a  law  of  God  or  a  law 
of  nature  disregarded,  or  in  danger  of  being  disregarded,  there  I  shall 
vote  to  reaffirm  it,  with  all- the  sanction  of  the  civil  authority.  But  I 
find  no  authority  for  the  position  that  climate  prevents  slavery  anywhere. 
It  is  the  indolence  of  mankind  in  any  climate,  and  not  any  natural  ne- 
cessity, that  introduces  slavery  in  any  climate.         #         #         # 


926  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

It  is  insisted  that  the  diffusion  of  slavery  will  not  increase  its  evils. 
The  argument  seems  to  me  merely  specious,  and  quite  unsound.  I  de- 
sire to  propose  one  or  two  questions  in  reply  to  it.  Is  slavery  stronger 
or  weaker  in  these  United  States,  from  its  diffusion  into  Missouri  ?  Is 
slavery  weaker  or  stronger  in  these  United  States,  from  the  exclusion 
of  it  from  the  northwest  territory  ?  The  answers  to  these  questions 
will  settle  the  whole  controversy. 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  great  and  all-absorbing  argument  that  the 
union  is  in  danger  of  being  dissolved,  and  that  it  can  only  be  saved  by 
compromise.  I  do  not  know  what  I  would  not  do  to  save  the  union ; 
and  therefore  I  shall  bestow  upon  this  subject  a  very  deliberate  con- 
sideration. 

I  do  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the  entire  delegation  from  the  slave 
states,  although  they  differ  in  regard  to  the  details  of  the  compromise  pro- 
posed, and  perhaps  in  regard  to  the  exact  circumstances  of  the  crisis, 
seem  to  concur  in  this  momentous  warning.  Nor  do  I  doubt  at  all  the 
patriotic  devotion  to  the  union  which  is  expressed  by  those  from  whom 
this  warning  proceeds.  And  yet,  sir,  although  such  warnings  have  been 
uttered  with  impassioned  solemnity  in  my  hearing  every  day  for  near 
three  months,  my  confidence  in  the  union  remains  unshaken.  I  think 
they  are  to  be  received  with  no  inconsiderable  distrust,  because  they  are 
uttered  under  the  influence  of  a  controlling  interest  to  be  secured,  a 
paramount  object  to  be  gained ;  and  that  is  an  equilibrium  of  power  in 
the  Republic.  *  *  # 

Sir,  in  any  condition  of  society  there  can  be  no  revolution  without  a 
cause,  an  adequate  cause.  What  cause  exists  here  ?  We  are  admitting 
a  new  state  ;  out  there  is  nothing  new  in  that :  we  have  already  admit- 
ted seventeen  before.  But  it  is  said  that  the  slave  states  are  in  danger 
of  losing  political  power  by  the  admission  of  the  new  state.  Well,  sir, 
is  there  anything  new  in  that?  The  slave  states  have  always  been 
losing  political  power,  and  they  always  will  be  while  they  have  any  to 
lose.  At  first,  twelve  of  the  thirteen  states  were  slave  states  ;  now  only 
fifteen  out  of  the  thirty  are  slave  states.  Moreover,  the  change  is  con- 
stitutionally made,  and  the  government  was  constructed  so  as  to  permit 
changes  of  the  balance  of  power,  in  obedience  to  changes  of  the  forces  of 
the  body  politic.  Danton  used  to  say,  "  It's  all  well  while  the  people 
cry  Danton  and  Robespierre ;  but  wo  for  me  if  ever  the  people  learn  to 
say,  Robespierre  and  Danton !"  That  is  all  of  it,  sir.  The  people  have 
been  accustomed  to  say,  "  the  South  and  the  North ;"  they  are  only  be- 
ginning now  to  say,  "  the  North  and  the  South."         #         *         # 

Sir,  when  the  founders  of  the  republic  of  the  south  come  to  draw  tho^e 
fearful  lines,  they  will  indicate  what  portions  of  the  continent  are  to  be 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    TERRITORIES  927 

broken  off  from  their  connection  with  the  Atlantic,  through  the  St. 
Lawrence,  the  Hudson,  the  Delaware,  the  Potomac,  and  the  Mississippi ; 
what  portion  of  this  people  are  to  be  denied  the  use  of  the  lakes,  the 
railroads,  and  the  canals,  now  constituting  common  and  customary 
avenues  of  travel,  trade,  and  social  intercourse  ;  what  families  and  kin- 
dred are  to  be  separated,  and  converted  into  enemies ;  and  what  states 
are  to  be  the  scenes  of  perpetual  border  warfare,  aggravated  by  inter- 
minable horrors  of  servile  insurrection.  When  those  portentous  lines 
shall  be  drawn,  they  will  disclose  what  portion  of  this  people  is  to  retain 
the  army  and  the  navy,  and  the  flag  of  so  many  victories ;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  what  portion  of  the  people  is  to  be  subjected  to  new  and 
onerous  imposts,  direct  taxes,  and  forced  loans,  and  conscriptions,  to 
maintain  an  opposing  army,  an  opposing  navy,  and  the  new  and  hateful 
banner  of  sedition.  Then  the  projectors  of  the  new  republic  of  the  south 
will  meet  the  question — and  they  may  well  prepare  now  to  answer  it — 
What  is  all  this  for  ?  What  intolerable  wrong,  what  unfraternal  injus- 
tice, have  rendered  these  calamities  unavoidable  ?  What  gain  will  this 
unnatural  revolution  bring  to  us  ?  The  answer  will  be :  All  this  is 
done  to  secure  the  institution  of  African  slavery.         *         *         # 

But  you  insist  on  a  guaranty  against  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia,  or  war.  Well,  when  you  shall  have  declared 
war  against  us,  what  shall  hinder  us  from  immediately  decreeing  that 
slavery  shall  cease  within  the  national  capital  ? 

You  say  that  you  will  not  submit  to  the  exclusion  of  slaves  from  the 
new  territories.  What  will  you  gain  by  resistance  ?  Liberty  follows 
the  sword,  although  her  sway  is  one  of  peace  and  beneficence.  Can  you 
propagate  slavery  then  by  the  sword  ? 

You  insist  that  you  cannot  submit  to  the  freedom  with  which  slavery 
is  discussed  in  the  free  states.  Will  war — a  war  for  slavery — arrest  or 
even  moderate  that  discussion  ?  No,  sir  ;  that  discussion  will  not  cease  ; 
war  will  only  inflame  it  to  a  greater  height.  It  is  a  part  of  the  eternal 
conflict  between  truth  and  error — between  mind  and  physical  force — the 
conflict  of  man  against  the  obstacles  which  oppose  his  way  to  an  ulti- 
mate and  glorious  destiny.  It  will  go  on  until  you  shall  terminate  it  in 
the  only  way  in  which  any  state  or  nation  has  ever  terminated  it — by 
yielding  to  it — yielding  in  your  own  time,  and  in  your  own  manner, 
indeed,  but  nevertheless  yielding  to  the  progress  of  emancipation.  You 
will  do  this,  sooner  or  later,  whatever  may  be  your  opinion  now ;  because 
nations  which  were  prudent  and  humane,  and  wise  as  you  are,  have  done 
so  already. 

Sir,  the  slave  states  have  no  reason  to  fear  that  this  inevitable  change 
will  go  too  far  or  too  fast  for  their  safety  or  welfare.  It  cannot  well  go 
too  fast   ,r  too  far,  if  the  only  alternative  is  a  war  of  races. 


928  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

But  it  cannot  go  too  fast.  Slavery  has  a  reliable  and  accommodating 
ally  in  a  party  in  the  free  states,  which,  though  it  claims  to  be,  and  doubt- 
less is  in  many  respects,  a  party  of  progress,  finds  its  sole  security  for 
its  political  power  in  the  support  and  aid  of  slavery  in  the  slave  states. 
Of  course,  I  do  not  include  in  that  party  those  who  are  now  cooperating 
in  maintaining  the  cause  of  freedom  against  slavery.  I  am  not  of  that 
party  of  progress  which  in  the  north  thus  lends  its  support  to  slavery. 
But  it  is  only  just  and  candid  that  I  should  bear  witness  to  its  fidelity 
to  the  interests  of  slavery. 

Slavery  has,  moreover,  a  more  natural  alliance  with  the  aristocracy 
of  the  north  and  with  the  aristocracy  of  Europe.  So  long  as  slavery 
shall  possess  the  cotton-fields,  the  sugar-fields,  and  the  rice-fields  of  the 
world,  so  long  will  commerce  and  capital  yield  it  toleration  and  sym- 
pathy. Emancipation  is  a  democratic  revolution.  It  is  capital  that 
arrests  all  democratic  revolutions.  It  was  capital  that,  so  recently,  in  a 
single  year,  rolled  back  the  tide  of  revolution  from  the  base  of  the  Car- 
pathian mountains,  across  the  Danube  and  the  Rhine,  into  the  streets  of 
Paris.  It  is  capital  that  is  rapidly  rolling  back  the  throne  of  Napoleon 
into  the  chambers  of  the  Tuilleries. 

Slavery  has  a  guaranty  still  stronger  than  these  in  the  prejudices  of 
caste  and  color,  which  induce  even  large  majorities  in  all  the  free  states 
to  regard  sympathy  with  the  slave  as  an  act  of  unmanly  humiliation  and 
self-abasement,  although  philosophy  meekly  expresses  her  distrust  of  the 
asserted  natural  superiority  of  the  white  race,  and  confidently  denies 
that  such  a  superiority,  if  justly  claimed,  could  give  a  title  to  oppression. 
There  remains  one  more  guaranty — one  that  has  seldom  failed  you, 
and  will  seldom  fail  you  hereafter.  New  states  cling  in  closer  alliance 
than  older  ones  to  the  federal  power.  The  concentration  of  the  slave 
power  enables  you  for  long  periods  to  control  the  federal  government 
with  the  aid  of  the  new  states.  I  do  not  know  the  sentiments  of  the 
representatives  of  California ;  but,  my  word  for  it,  if  they  should  be 
admitted  on  this  floor  to-day,  against  your  most  obstinate  opposition, 
they  would,  on  all  questions  really  affecting  your  interests,  be  found  at 
your  side.         *         *         *         * 

There  are  many  well-disposed  persons  who  are  alarmed  at  the  occur- 
rence of  any  such  disturbance.  The  failure  of  a  legislative  body  to  organize 
is  to  their  apprehension  a  fearful  omen,  and  an  extra-constitutional 
assemblage  to  consult  upon  public  affairs  is  with  them  cause  for  despe- 
ration. Even  senators  speak  of  the  union  as  if  it  existed  only  by  con- 
sent, and,  as  it  seems  to  be  implied,  by  the  assent  of  the  legislatures  of 
the  states.  On  the  contrary,  the  union  was  not  founded  in  voluntary 
choice,  nor  does  it  exist  by  voluntary  consent. 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    I^SRRITORIES.  929 

A  union  was  proposed  to  the  colonies  by  Franklin  and  others,  in 
1754;  but  such  was  their  aversion  to  an  abridgment  of  their  own 
importance,  respectively,  that  it  was  rejected  even  under  the  pressure  of 
a  disastrous  invasion  by  France. 

A  union  of  choice  was  proposed  to  the  colonies  in  1775  ;  but  so  strong 
was  their  opposition,  that  they  went  through  the  war  of  independence 
without  having  established  more  than  a  mere  council  of  consultation. 

But  with  independence  came  enlarged  interests  of  agriculture — abso- 
lutely new  interests  of  manufactures — interests  of  commerce,  of  fish- 
eries, of  navigation,  of  a  common  domain,  of  common  debts,  of  common 
revenues  and  taxation,  of  the  administration  of  justice,  of  public  defense, 
of  public  honor ;  in  short,  interests  of  common  nationality  and  sover- 
eignty— interests  which  at  last  compelled  the  adoption  of  a  more  perfect 
union — a  national  governme^ 

The  genius,  talents,  and  laming  of  Hamilton,  of  Jay,  and  of  Madi- 
son, surpassing  perhaps  the  intellectual  power  ever  exerted  before  for 
the  establishment  of  a  government,  combined  with  the  serene  but  mighty 
influence  of  Washington,  were  only  sufficient  to  secure  the  reluctant 
adoption  of  the  constitution  that  is  now  the  object  of  all  our  affections 
and  of  the  hopes  of  mankind.  No  wonder  that  the  conflicts  in  which 
that  constitution  was  born,  and  the  almost  desponding  solemnity  of 
Washington,  in  his  farewell  address,  impressed  his  countrymen  and  man- 
kind with  a  profound  distrust  of  its  perpetuity  !  No  wonder  that  while 
the  murmurs  of  that  day  are  yet  ringing  in   our  ears,  we  cherish  that 

distrust,  with  pious  reverence,  as  a  national  and  patriotic  sentiment. 

#  #  #  #  *  *  * 

I  have  heard  somewhat  here,  and  almost  for  the  first  time  in  my  life, 
of  divided  allegiance — of  allegiance  to  the  south  and  to  the  union — of 
allegiance  to  states  severally  and  to  the  union.  Sir,  if  sympathies  with 
state  emulation  and  pride  of  achievement  could  be  allowed  to  raise  up 
another  sovereign  to  divide  the  allegiance  of  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  I  might  recognize  the  claims  of  the  state  to  which,  by  birth  and 
gratitude,  I  belong — to  the  state  of  Hamilton  and  Jay,  of  Schuyler,  of 
the  Clintous,  and  of  Fulton — the  state  which,  with  less  than  two  hun- 
dred miles  of  natural  navigation  connected  with  the  ocean,  has,  by  her 
own  enterprise,  secured  to  herself  the  commerce  of  the  continent,  and  is 
steadily  advancing  to  the  command  of  the  commerce  of  the  world.  But 
for  all  this  I  know  only  one  country  and  one  sovereign — the  United 
States  of  America  and  the  American  people.  And  such  as  my  allegi- 
ance is,  is  the  loyalty  of  every  other  citizen  of  the  United  States.  As 
I  speak,  he  will  speak  when  his  time  arrives.  He  knows  no  other  coun- 
try and  no  other  sovereign.     He  has  life,  libertv,  property,  and  precious 

59 


930  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

affections,  and  hopes  for  himself  and  for  his  posterity,  treasured  up  in 
the  ark  of  the  union.  He  knows  as  well  and  feels  as  strongly  as  I  do, 
that  this  government  is  his  own  government;  that  he  is  a  part  of  it; 
that  it  was  established  for  him,  and  that  it  is  maintained  by  him ;  that 
it  is  the  only  truly  wise,  just,  free,  and  equal  government,  that  has  ever 
existed*  that  no  other  government  could  be  so  wise,  just,  free,  and 
equal ;  and  that  it  is  safer  and  more  beneficent  than  any  which  time  or 
change  could  bring  into  its  place. 

You  may  tell  me,  sir,  that  although  all  this  may  be  true,  yet  the  trial 
of  faction  has  not  yet  been  made.  Sir,  if  the  trial  of  faction  has  not 
been  made,  it  has  not  been  because  faction  has  not  always  existed,  and 
has  not  always  menaced  a  trial,  but  because  faction  could  find  no  ful- 
crum on  which  to  place  the  lever  to  subvert  the  union,  as  it  can  find  no 
fulcrum  now ;  and  in  this  is  my  confidence.  I  would  not  rashly  provoke 
the  trial ;  but  I  will  not  suffer  a  fear,  which  I  have  not,  to  make  me 
compromise  one  sentiment,  one  principle  of  truth  or  justice,  to  avert  a 
danger  that  all  experience  teaches  me  is  purely  chimerical.  Let,  then, 
those  who  distrust  the  union  make  compromises  to  save  it.  I  shall  not 
impeach  their  wisdom,  as  I  certainly  cannot  their  patriotism;  but, 
indulging  no  such  apprehensions  myself,  I  shall  vote  for  the  admission 
of  California  directly,  without  conditions,  without  qualifications,  and 
without  compromise.     *     *     * 

Mr.  Cass,  on  the  13th  of  March,  expressed  his  views  at  some  length. 
A  part  of  his  speech  was  in  reply  to  certain  remarks  of  Mr.  Calhoun 
and  Mr.  Seward.  He  agreed  with  what  had  been  said  by  Mr.  Clay ; 
and  he  would  vote  for  the  proposed  reference  of  the  resolutions,  indeed 
for  almost  any  proposition  likely  to  bring  this  country  into  harmony 
upon  this  perplexing  question.  He  thought  the  country  was  under  last- 
ing obligations  to  Mr.  Foote  for  his  efforts  to  terminate  the  existing  diffi- 
culties. For  Mr.  Calhoun,  he  expressed  deep  sympathy,  but  dissented 
from  parts  of  his  speech,  which,  he  thought,  contained  a  strange  collec- 
tion and  collocation  of  facts,  followed  by  strange  conclusions.  The  som- 
bre hue  which  pervaded  his  speech,  he  imagined,  was  owing  to  its  having 
been  prepared  in  the,  recesses  of  a  sick  chamber.  [Mr.  Calhoun,  too 
feeble  to  address  the  senate,  had  written  his  speech,  which  had  been  read 
by  Mr.  Mason,  of  Virginia.] 

Mr.  Cass  took  exception  to  an  expression  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  calling 
Washington  "  the  illustrious  southerner.'^''  "  Our  Washington — the 
Washington  of  our  whole  country — receives  in  this  senate,  the  epithet 
of  '  southerner,'  as  if  that  great  man,  whose  distinguished  characteristic 
was  his  attachment  to  his  country,  and  his  whole  country,  who  was  so 
well  known,  and  who,  more  than  any  one,  deprecated  all  sectional  feeling 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    TERRITORIES.  931 

and  all  sectional  action — loved  Georgia  better  than  he  loved  New  Hamp- 
shire, because  he  happened  to  be  born  on  the  southern  bank  of  the  Poto- 
mac. '  I  repeat,  sir,  that  I  heard  with  great  pain,  that  expression  from 
the  distinguished  senator  from  South  Carolina.  *  *  * 

We  have  been  three  months  here,  and  what  have  we  done?  Nothing. 
We  have  not  passed  a  single  law  of  the  least  national  importance.  We 
have  occupied  the  whole  time  by  the  discussion  of  this  question,  and  no 
practical  result  has  been  attained  ;  and  present  appearances  do  not  indi- 
cate that  such  a  result  is  near.  But,  though  we  have  done  nothing,  we 
have  ascertained  that  some  things  can  not  be  done.  We  have  ascertained 
(I  think  I  may  say  with  certainty)  that  no  Wilraot  proviso  can  be  passed 
through  this  congress.  That  measure  is  dead.  It  is  the  latest,  and  I 
hope  it  is  the  last,  attempt  that  will  be  made  to  interfere  with  the  right 
of  self-government  within  the  limits  of  this  republic.  I  think  we  may 
also  say,  that  no  Missouri  compromise  line  can  pass,  and  that  no  one 
expects  or  desires  that  it  should  pass. 

Mr.  President,  what  was  the  compromise  line?  Allow  me  to  read 
the  law  which  established  it : 

"  Sec.  8.  And  be  it  further  enacted^  That  in  all  that  territory  ceded 
by  France  to  the  United  States,  under  the  name  of  Louisiana,  which 
lies  north  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  not 
included  within  the  limits  of  the  state  contemplated  by  this  act,  slavery 
and  involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes, 
whereof  the  parties  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  be,  and  is 
hereby,  forever  prohibited." 

Now,  sir,  what  is  that  provision  ?  It  is  intervention  north  of  the  line 
of  36°  30',  and  non-intervention  south  of  that  line.  Why,  sir,  there  is 
not  one  southern  senator  on  this  floor,  and  not  one  southern  member  of 
the  other  house,  nor  indeed  a  southern  man  who  understands  the  sub- 
ject, who  would  accept  that  line  as  a  proper  settlement  of  this  question. 

Mr.  FooTE,  (in  his  seat.)     I  would  not. 

Mr.  Cass.  Why,  sir,  the  whole  doctrine  of  equal  rights  and  of  non- 
intervention is  taken  away  by  it  at  once.  Why,  sir,  putting  out  of 
view  the  constitutional  objections  to  such  an  arrangement,  it  gives  the 
south  nothing,  while  it  prohibits  the  people  north  of  36°  30'  from  exer- 
cising their  own  will  upon  the  subject.  The  true  doctrine  of  non-inter- 
vention leaves  the  whole  question  to  the  people,  and  does  not  divide 
their  right  of  decision  by  a  parallel  of  latitude.  If  they  choose  to  have 
slavery  north  of  that  line,  they  can  have  it. 

Mr.  Calhoun,  (in  his  seat.)  We  are  very  competent  to  judge  of  that 
matter  ourselves. 

Mr.  Cass.     Is  there  a  senator  on  this  floor  who  would  accept  of  a 


932  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

proposition  to  apply  the  principle  of  non-intervention  to  a  part  of  the 
territory,  leaving  to  the  people  of  the  other  portion  to  do  as  they  please  ? 
No  sir  •  there  is  not  a  southern  senator  here  who  would  vote  for  it.  I 
will  tell  you,  what  would  be  voted  for,  has  already  been  announced — a 
law  declaratory,  mandatory,  or  permissory,  for  the  establishment  of 
slavery  south  of  the  line  of  36°  30'.  The  distinguished  senator  from 
South  Carolina  might  be  willing  to  accept  a  declaration  that  slavery 
does  now  exist,  or  that  it  shall  exist,  or  may  exist,  south  of  a  certain 
line ;  but  I  take  it  for  granted  that  no  senator  from  the  south  would  be 
willing  to  abandon  the  ground  of  non-intervention,  without  some  provi- 
sion like  that.  #  »  # 

"Well,  then,  Mr.  President,  if  these  things  are  impossible — if  they 
cannot  be  done — it  remains  to  inquire  what  it  is  in  our  power  to  do. 

My  own  opinion  is,  sir,  that  we  should  take  up  the  bill  for  the  recap- 
ture of  fugitive  slaves,  reported  by  the  judiciary  committee.  I  am  dis- 
posed to  suspend  all  our  discussions,  and  to  lay  aside  all  other  business, 
with  a  view  to  act  upon  that  bill,  without  unnecessary  delay,  and  to 
pass  it  in  such  form  as  would  be  acceptable  to  a  majority  of  this  body. 
That  is  a  point  upon  which  the  south  feels  most  acutely,  and  in  regard 
to  which  it  has  the  most  serious  cause  of  complaint.  I  have  heard  but 
one  man  in  this  body  deny  the  existence  of  this  evil,  or  the  justice  and 
necessity  of  providing  an  adequate  remedy.  #  *  # 

If  I  understood  the  senator  from  New  York,  (Mr.  Seward,)  he  inti- 
mated his  belief  that  it  was  immoral  to  carry  into  eflfect  the  provision 
of  the  constitution  for  the  recapture  of  fugitive  slaves.  That,  sir,  is  a 
very  strange  view  of  the  duties  of  a  senator  in  this  body.  No  man 
should  come  here  who  believes  that  ours  is  an  immoral  constitution ; 
no  man  should  come  here,  and,  by  the  solemn  sanction  of  an  oath,  pro- 
mise to  support  an  immoral  constitution.  No  man  is  compelled  to  take 
an  oath  to  support  it.  He  may  live  in  this  country,  and  believe  what 
he  chooses  with  regard  to  the  constitution  ;  but  he  has  no  right,  as  an 
honest  man,  to  seek  office,  and  obtain  it,  and  then  talk  about  its  being 
so  immoral  that  he  can  not  fulfill  its  obligations.  It  is  the  duty  of  every 
man,  who  has  sworn  to  support  the  constitution,  fairly  to  carry  its  pro- 
visions into  effect ;  and  no  man  can  stand  up  before  his  fellow-citizens 
and  maintain  any  other  doctrine,  whatever  reasons  he  may  urge  in  his 
vindication. 

In  one  of  the  most  disingenuous  portions  of  the  speech  of  the  honor- 
able senator  from  New  York,  (Mr.  Seward) — which  itself  was  one  of  the 
most  disingenuous  I  have  ever  heard — he  speaks  of  "  slavery  having  a 
reliable  and  accommodating  ally  in  a  party  of  the  free  states,"  and  he 
says  he  "  bears  witness  to  its  fidelity  to  the  interests  of  Bkvery." 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    TERRITORIES.  933 

Now,  I  ask  the  senator  from  New  York,  if  he  believes  there  is  a 
man  in  this  senate  from  the  north,  whose  course  is  influenced  by  his 
fidelity  to  slavery  ;  and  if  he  does,  what  right  he  has  to  cast  odium  upon 
gentlemen  who  are  associated  with  him  in  the  high  duties  which  belong 
to  his  position  ? 

Mr.  Seward.  The  senator  addresses  a  question  to  me,  and  I  rise  for 
no  other  purpose  than  to  answer  it.  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Jefferson  who 
said  that  the  natural  ally  of  slavery  in  the  south  was  the  democracy  of 
the  north. 

A  senator.     It  was  Mr.  Buchanan. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  have  heard  it  attributed  to  Mr.  Jefferson.  How- 
ever this  may  be,  I  believe  it.  I  assail  the  motives  of  no  senator.  I 
am  not  to  be  drawn  into  personal  altercations  by  any  interrogatories 
addressed  to  me.  I  acknowledge  the  patriotism,  the  wisdom,  the  purity 
of  every  member  of  this  body.  I  never  have  assailed  the  motives  of 
honorable  senators  in  any  instance,  I  never  shall.  When  my  own  are 
assailed,  I  stand  upon  my  own  position.  My  life  and  acts  must  speak 
for  me.     I  shall  not  be  my  own  defender  or  advocate. 

Mr.  FooTE.  Do  I  understand  the  senator  from  New  York  as  saying 
Mr.  Jefferson  asserted  that  the  northern  democracy  was  the  natural  ally 
of  slavery  ?     He  never  said  such  a  word. 

Mr.  Cass.  I  will  not  touch  upon  that  question ;  but  I  will  ask  the 
senator  from  New  York  in  relation  to  another  point — and  that  is, 
if  he  meant  it  in  the  sense  which  Mr.  Jefferson,  or  whoever  may  have 
used  it,  intended  ?  The  one  was  intended  as  a  commendation  for  their 
attachment  to  constitutional  principles — the  other  as  a  slur  upon  a  great 
party. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  answer  promptly  and  freely :  I  had  no  purpose  of 
casting  reproach  upon,  or  of  reflecting  upon,  any  member  of  this  body, 
or  upon  any  person  anywhere.  The  remark  had  no  such  connection.  I 
ask  leave  now  to  say,  that  such  as  I  described  is,  in  my  view,  the  political 
organization  of  the  parties  of  this  country;  that  slavery  has  the  support, 
the  toleration  (given  honestly,  and  from  patriotic  motives,  I  admit)  of 
the  party  to  which  I  referred ;  and  that  its  alliance  with  slavery  consti- 
tutes its  tower  of  strength.  On  the  other  hand,  the  party  to  which  I 
belong,  is  a  party  which  is  more  distinctly  identified  with  the  progress 
of  the  sentiment  of  freedom  or  emancipation,  and  therefore  it  is  weaker 
in  its  alliances  with  the  south. 

Mr.  Dawson,  of  Georgia,  wished  to  know  if  Mr.  Seward  belonged  to 
the  whig  party  and  spoke  its  sentiments  ? 

Mr.  Sewar-D  said  he  spoke  for  no  man  but  himself.  But  in  the  dis- 
charge of  his  duty,  he  allied  himself  to  such  a  party  as  was  most  approxi- 


934  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

mate  to  his  principles  and  sentiments.  He  had  "belonged  to  the  whig 
party  durino-  all  his  active  life,  and  he  should  be  the  last  to  leave  it, 
because  of  the  two  great  parties  it  was  the  most  devoted  to  the  cause  of 
freedom  and  emancipation. 

Mr  Cass,  (resuming.)  I  was  going  to  remark  that,  with  respect  to  the 
creed  of  the  whig  party,  or  the  orthodoxy  of  the  senator  from  New 
York,  it  is  a  matter  with  which  I  have  no  concern ;  but  with  respect  to 
progress,  I  have  something  to  say.  My  progress  is  within  the  constitu- 
tion. My  age  of  progress  is  circumscribed  there.  If  the  senator  from 
New  York  is  going  out  of  it,  I  do  not  believe  in  his  progress  at  all. 
No,  sir  !  My  object  is  to  support  the  constitution  which,  under  God,  is 
the  source  of  our  prosperity  and  happiness. 

Mr.  Seward,  (in  his  seat.)     That  is  mine. 

Mr.  Cass.  The  senator  from  New  York  says,  that  also  is  his  object. 
If  it  is,  I  think  he  has  a  very  strange  way  of  showing  it,  by  pronouncing 
it  immoral,  and  denying  the  validity  of  its  obligations.  It  would  last 
scarcely  a  day,  if  that  senator,  with  his  avowed  principle  of  action,  had 
the  direction  of  the  government,  I  do  not  say  that  it  would  be  dissolved 
immediately,  but  the  seeds  of  dissolution  would  be  sown,  and  would 
ripen  into  a  harvest  of  misfortune  as  speedily  as  the  rankest  vegetation 
gains  maturity  under  a  tropical  sun. 

Some  conversation  and  explanations  here  took  place  between  Mr. 
Cass  and  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  reference  to  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Calhoun  in 
his  speech,  in  relation  to  the  means  of  saving  the  union ;  which  were, 
the  immediate  settlement  of  the  slave  question,  and  an  amendment  of 
the  constitution  :  also  in  relation  to  the  admission  of  California  being 
made  a  test  question ;  which  Mr.  Cass  understood  to  mean,  that  the 
admission  of  California  would  be  followed  by  a  dissolution  of  the  union ; 
a  construction  of  his  remarks  which  Mr.  Calhoun  disavowed.  In  regard 
to  the  word  "  now,"  he  did  not  mean  that  the  amendment  to  the  consti- 
tution must  be  made  instanter,  but  that  an  indication  should  be  given 
now,  that  such  amendment  would  be  agreed  to,  leaving  it  to  be  carried 
through  the  ordinary  process. 

Mr.  Cass  concluded  his  speech  the  next  day.  He  said:  I  was 
remarking  yesterday,  when  I  resigned  the  floor,  that  there  were  certain 
things  we  could  not  accomplish,  and  others  that,  with  equal  certainty, 
we  might  take  for  granted  we  could  do.  Among  the  latter,  was  the  bill 
providing  for  the  recapture  of  fugitive  slaves ;  and  another  object, 
which  I  trust  will  be  accomplished,  is  the  providing  of  a  government  for 
the  new  territories.  I  think  it  essential  to  calm  this  agitation,  and  so 
long  as  these  territories  are  left  without  a  government,  so  long  will  the 
present  state  of  things  continue,  and  this  agitation  be  kept  up,  which  is 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    TERRITORIES.  935 

BO  harassing  to  the  tranquillity,  and  dangerous  to  the  peace,  of  the 
union.  That  a  law  may  be  passed  authorizing  the  people  of  the  terri- 
tories to  govern  themselves,  without  any  Wilmot  proviso  being  attached 
to  it,  is  my  wish  and  my  hope. 

Sir,  we  cannot  stand  before  the  country,  and  before  the  world,  and 
object  to  the  admission  of  California  on  the  ground  that  has  been  urged. 
The  objection  is  not  to  her  boundaries,  though  that  topic  has  been  much 
debated.  #  *  *  I  myself  was  at  first  startled  at  the  boundary 
claimed,  stretching  as  it  does  along  the  coast  of  the  Pacific  one  thousand 
miles — a  much  greater  extent  than  any  one  state  in  the  union  ought  to 
possess.  *  *  *  But  the  country  between  the  ocean  and  the  sea  is  a 
narrow  one,  and  east  of  the  mountains  is  a  desert,  and  in  proportion  to 
its  extent,  the  quantity  of  arable  land  is  small.  Be  the  boundaries  as 
they  may,  it  is  not  probable  that  its  population  will  ever  be  as  great  as 
that  of  some  of  the  other  states  of  this  union.  And  if  its  southern 
boundary  were  to  stop  at  the  mountains,  ;there  would  be  left  between 
them  and  the  Mexican  possessions  a  small  district  of  country,  which 
would  have  to  remain  for  an  indefinite  period,  perhaps  forever,  in  a 
colonial  condition. 

The  senator  from  South  Carolina,  (Mr.  Calhoun,)  who  I  regret  to  see 
is  not  in  his  seat  to-day,  does  not  assume  this  ground  as  an  objection  to 
the  admission  of  California.  That  objection  rests  upon  her  present 
position  and  mode  of  application  ;  because  she  has  established  a  govern- 
ment of  her  own  without  passing  through  a  territorial  process,  and  comes 
here  of  her  own  accord,  and  asks  admission  into  this  union.  This 
ground  of  objection  cannot  be  maintained  in  this  age  of  the  world, 
before  the  people  of  this  country,  and,  I  may  add,  the  people  of  Chris- 
tendom. *  *  * 

There  are  two  positions  I  have  always  maintained  with  reference  to 
this  subject — first,  that  congress,  under  the  constitution,  has  no  right  to 
establish  governments  for  the  territories ;  secondly,  that  under  no  cir- 
cumstances have  they  the  right  to  pass  any  law  to  regulate  the  internal 
aff'airs  of  the  people  inhabiting  them.  The  first  may  be  a  matter  of 
necessity ;  and  when  thfe  necessity  exists,  if  a  senator  votes  for  it,  he 
votes  upon  his  own  responsi'bility  to  his  constituents.  If  they  believe 
the  necessity  and  support  him,  he  is  safe,  but  if  not,  he  must  fall.  If  I 
had  voted  under  such  circumstances,  I  must  have  looked  to  my  constitu- 
ents for  my  justification ;  but  under  no  circumstances  could  I  have 
voted  for  any  law  interfering  with  the  internal  concerns  of  the  people  of 
a  territory.  No  necessity  requires  it;  there  is  no  necessity  which 
would  justify  it. 

Mr.  Chase.     Did  I  understand  the  senator  as  saying  that,  in  voting 


936  '  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

for  a  bill  to  establisli  a  government  in  the  territories  he  would  assume 
the  exercise  of  any  authority  not  given  in  the  constitution  ? 

Mr.  Cass.  The  honorable  senator  will  undoubtedly  recollect,  that  in 
a  historical  document  called  the  Nicholson  letter,  which  subsequent 
circumstances  have  made  somewhat  important,  I  distinctly  stated  my 
views  upon  this  subject,  and  those  views  have  remained  unchanged  to 
the  present  hour.  I  maintained,  that  no  power  is  given  by  the  con- 
stitution to  establish  territorial  governments,  but  that  where  an  impe- 
rious necessity  exists  for  such  a  measure,  the  legislator  who  yields  to  it 
must  look  to  his  constituents  for  his  justification. 

Mr.  Chase.  I  understood  the  senator  to  say,  that  there  was  no  6ucli 
authority  given  by  the  constitution  ? 

Mr.  Cass.     I  said,  that  if  we  do  an  act  not  authorized  by  the  consti- 
tution, under  a  pressure  of  necessity,  that  act  must  be  done  upon  our 
own  responsibility ;  and  I  refer  the  gentleman  to  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Madison,  who  justified  the  action  of  the  congress  of  the  confederation, 
on  the  subject  of  territories,  upon  this  ground — and  upon  this  alone. 
If  the  gentleman  will  take  the  trouble   to  look  at  my   speech  on  the 
Wilmot  proviso,  he  will  find  my  views  on  this  point  distinctly  laid  down. 
What  is   the  objection  in   principle  to   the  admission  of  California? 
Allow  me  to  say,  that  great  political  rights  and  movements,  in  this  age 
of  the  world,  are  not  to  be  determined  by  mere  abstract  or  speculative 
opinions.     There  is  no  want  of  heavy  books  in  the  world,  which  treat  of 
political  science ;  but  you  need  not  go  to  them  to  ascertain  the  rights 
of  men — either  individuals  or  in  communities  ;  if  you  do,  you  will  lose 
yourself  groping  in  a  labyrinth,  and  where  no  man  can  follow  you.     If 
there  are  rights  of  sovereignty,  there  may  be  wrongs  of  sovereignty ; 
and  this  truth  should  be  held  in  everlasting  remembrance.     And  this  is 
the  case  with  regard  to  California.     We  have  rights,  and  we  have  duties ; 
and  if  the  former  are  sacred,  the  latter  should  be  sacred  also.     One  of 
these  duties  we  have  neglected  to  perform ;  and  we  are  told  by  gentle- 
men who  have  spoken  here,  that  when  a  state  wishes  admission  into  the 
union,  she  should  come  to  the  door  of  congress  and  knock  for  admission. 
California  has  thus  come,  and  knocked ;  but  no  door  is  open  to  her,  and 
she  is  to  be  told,  "  Go  back  and  wait  till  we  are  ready."     There  is  but 
one  door  through  which  you  can  enter,  and  that  door  we  keep  shut. 
You  must  pass  through  a  territorial  government ;  but  that  government 
we  have  neglected  to  give  you,  and  we  are  probably  as  far  from  estab- 
lishing it  as  ever.     And  such  is  the  paternal  regard  we  manifest  toward 
one  hundred  thousand  American  citizens,  who  are  upholding  the  flag  of 
our  country  on  the  distant  shores  of  the  Pacific.     A  good  deal  has  been 
said  about  precedents  :  I  am  not  going  to  examine  either  their  applica- 


PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION   OF   1829.  937 

tion  or  authority,  though  it  has  been  pretty  clearly  shown  by  others, 
that  they  fully  justify  this  measure  of  admission. 

About  two  months  after  the  date  of  this  speech  of  Gen.  Cass,  Mr. 
Calhoun,  who  had  participated  in  this  debate,  died  in  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington, on  the  31st  of  March,  1850.  His  death  was  succeeded,  in  1852, 
by  that  of  his  two  distinguished  associates  in  that  body,  Mr.  Clay  and 
Mr.  Webster.  The  former  died  at  Washington,  on  the  29th  of  June, 
of  that  year ;  the  latter  in  the  following  autumn,  at  his  residence  in 
Massachusetts. 


CHAPTER  LXXIV. 

PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION    OF   1852. INAUGURATION    OF    MR.    PIERCE. 

The  national  democratic  convention  to  nominate  candidates  for  president 
and  vice-president,  met  at  Baltimore  on  the  1st  of  June,  1 852.  The  Hon. 
John  W.  Davis,  of  Indiana,  formerly  speaker  of  the  house  of  represen- 
tatives, was  chosen  president  of  the  convention. 

The  two-thirds  rule,  which  was  again  proposed,  was  opposed  on  the 
ground  that  it  enabled  a  minority  to  force  the  majority  into  their  views. 
It  was,  however,  adopted.  Although  the  convention  was  more  pacific 
than  that  of  1848,  there  was  .quite  as  great  a  difficulty  in  effecting  a 
nomination. 

Gen.  Cass  received  on  the  first  ballot,  117  votes;  James  Buchanan, 
93;  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  20;  Wm.  L.  Marcy,  27.  The  balloting, 
which  did  not  begin  until  the  3d  day,  (June  3d,)  ended  for  that  day 
with  the  17th  ballot,  which  stood:  For  Cass,  99;  Buchanan,  87; 
Douglas,  50 ;  Marcy,  26.  The  next  day's  balloting  closed  with  the 
33d  trial,  Cass  having  received  123  votes;  Buchanan,  72  ;  Douglas,  60  ; 
Marcy,  25.  On  the  5th,  the  Virginia  delegation  having  retired  for 
consultation,  returned,  and  cast  their  votes  for  Franklin  Pierce,  of  New 
Hampshire,  who,  on  the  49th  ballot,  received  the  unanimous  vote  of  the 
convention. 

William  E.  King,  of  Alabama,  was  nominated  for  vice-president. 

The  whig  convention,  which  met  at  the  same  place  on  the  16th  of 
June,  was  also  in  session  five  days,  having  found  it  no  less  difficult  to 
unite  upon  a  candidate  for  president.  John  G.  Chapman,  of  Maryland, 
was  chosen  president  of  the  convention.     Some  delay  in  the  proceedings 


938  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  the  convention  was  caused  by  a  contest  for  seats  between  some  of  the 
New  York  delegates.  Unlike  the  convention  of  1848,  a  platform  of 
principles  was  adopted,  by  a  vote  of  227  to  60,  and  4)efore  any  attempt 
at  nomination  had  been  made. 

Balloting  commenced  the  3d  day  of  the  session,  Mr.  Fillmore  receiv- 
ing 132  votes;  Gren.  Scott,  131  ;  Mr.  Webster,  29.  The  next  day  began 
with  the  7th  ballot;  and  on  the  53d,  the  result  was,  for  Scott,  159; 
Fillmore,  112;  Webster,  21;  Scott  having  a  majority.  William  A. 
Grahapi,  of  North  Carolina,  was  nominated  for  vice-president. 

The  declarations  of  sentiment,  or  platforms  of  the  two  parties  were 
less  antagonistic  than  usual.  The  distinctive  principles  of  the  respective 
parties  were  less  prominently  set  forth ;  while  upon  certain  abstract 
questions,  and  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  two  conventions  took  the  same 
ground.     The  democratic  convention  declared, 

"  That  congress  has  no  power  under  the  constitution  to  interfere  with 
or  control  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  several  states,  and  that  such 
states  are  the  sole  and  proper  judges  of  every  thing  appertaining  to  their 
own  affairs,  not  prohibited  by  the  constitution ;  that  all  efforts  of  the 
abolitionists,  or  others,  made  to  induce  congress  to  interfere  with  ques- 
tions of  slavery,  or  to  take  incipient  steps  in  relation  thereto,  are  calcu- 
lated to  lead  to  the  most  alarming  and  dangerous  consequences ;  and 
that  all  such  efforts  have  an  inevitable  tendency  to  diminish  the  happi- 
ness of  the  people,  and  endanger  the  stability  and  permanency  of  the 
union,  and  ought  not  to  be  countenanced  by  any  friend  of  our  political 
institutions. 

"  That  the  foregoing  proposition  covers,  and  M^as  intended  to  embrace 
the  whole  subject  of  slavery  agitation  in  congress ;  and  therefore  the 
democratic  party  of  the  union,  standing  on  this  national  platform,  will 
abide  by  and  adhere  to  a  faithful  execution  of  the  acts  known  as  the 
compromise  measures  settled  by  the  last  congress — the  act  for  reclaim- 
ing fugitives  from  service  or  labor  included ;  which  act  being  designed 
to  carry  out  an  express  provision  of  the  constitution,  can  not  with  fidel- 
itj^  thereto  be  repealed,  nor  so  changed  as  to  destroy  or  impair  its  effi- 
ciency. 

"  That  the  democratic  party  will  resist  all  attempts  at  renewing  in 
congress  or  out  of  it,  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question,  under  what- 
ever shape  or  color  the  attempt  may  be  made." 

The  whig  convention  makes  the  following  declaration  : 

"  That  the  series  of  acts  of  the  thirty-first  congress — the  act  known 
as  the  fugitive  slave  law  included — are  received  and  acquiesced  in  by  the 
whig  party  of  the  United  States,  as  a  settlement  in  principle  and  sub- 
stance, of  the  dangerous  and  exciting  question  which  they  embrace ;  and 


THE    INAUGURATION    OF    MR.    PIEE,CE.  939 

80  far  as  they  are  concerned,  we  will  maintain  them  and  insist  on 
their  strict  enforcement,  until  time  and  experience  shall  demonstrate  the 
necessity  of  further  legislation,  to  guard  against  the  evasion  of  the  law 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  abuse  of  their  powers  on  the  other,  not  impair- 
ing their  present  efficiency ;  and  we  deprecate  all  further  agitation  of  the 
question  thus  settled,  as  dangerous  to  our  peace ;  and  will  discounte- 
nance all  eflForts  to  continue  or  renew  such  agination  whenever,  wherever, 
or  however  the  attempt  may  be  made ;  and  we  will  maintain  this  system 
as  essential  to  the  nationality  of  the  whig  party  of  the  union." 

The  resolutions  constituting  the  whig  platform,  were  said  to  have  been 
prepared  or  dictated  by  the  southern  delegates.  Certain  it  is,  that  in  no 
exclusively  northern  convention  of  whigs  would  such  a  declaration  as  the 
above  have  received  the  votes  of  the  delegates  from  the  free  states  who 
seemed  to  concur  in  their  adoption.  Ifc  is  not  doubted,  however,  that, 
from  many  of  them  they  received  a  very  reluctant  support. 

All  the  southern  delegates,  except  those  from  Delaware,  voted  on  the 
first  ballot  for  Mr.  Fillmore  ;  and  were  unwilling  to  pledge  themselves 
to  the  support  of  Gen.  Scott,  until  a  letter  from  him  was  read  to  the 
convention,  expressing  his  willingness  to  accept  the  nomination  if  ten- 
dered him,  with  the  platform  laid  down  by  the  convention. 

Judging  simply  from  their  respective  platforms,  it  would  seem  that 
there  was  little  ground  for  a  very  active  and  vigorous  contest  between 
the  parties.  The  campaign,  however,  was  conducted  with  the  usual  spirit, 
though  with  unequal  advantages.  A  reunion  of  the  democratic  party 
had  taken  place.  The  compromise  of  1850  was  supposed  to  have  settled 
the  slavery  controversy  which  had  been  the  principal  cause  of  difference 
between  the  two  sections  of  that  party.  The  whigs  were  less  united.  A 
majority  of  the  party  at  the  north  was  opposed  to  the  late  compromise 
measures,  which,  in  the  main,  were  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  Mr. 
Fillmore,  and  to  which  he  had  given  his  official  sanction.  Mr.  Webster 
also  was  in  favor  of  the  compromise.  Hence,  the  mass  of  the  friends  of 
these  two  gentlemen  gave  to  the  nomination  at  best  a  lukewarm  support, 
and  many  of  them  no  support  at  all,  as  was  evident  from  the  popular 
vote.  Much  had  been  expected  from  the  military  popularity  of  General 
Scott;  but  whatever  advantage  this  may  have  given  him,  was  more  than 
counterbalanced  by  the  disaffection  of  the  friends  of  the  disappointed 
candidates.     There  was  an  overwhelming  defeat  of  the  whig  party. 

Of  the  296  electoral  votes,  Mr.  Pierce  received  254.  General  Scott 
received  only  the  votes  of  the  states  of  Massachusetts,  Vermont,  Ken- 
tucky and  Tennessee,  in  all,  42. 

The  inauguration  of  Franklin  Pierce  as  president  of  the  United  States, 
took  place  on  the  4th  of  March,  1853.    The  inaugural  address  contained 


940  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN 

the  usual  eulogium  upon  the  government.  One  of  the  evidences  of  the 
wisdom  of  its  founders  was  found  in  the  actual  working  of  the  system, 
which  had  allayed  the  apprehensions  of  dangers  from  extended  territory, 
multiplied  states,  accumulated  wealth,  and  augmented  population. 

Special  allusion  was  made  in  the  address  to  the  subject  "  which  had 
recently  agitated  the  nation."  He  said:  "  If  the  federal  government 
would  confine  itself  to  th%  exercise  of  powers  clearly  granted  by  the  con- 
stitution, it  could  hardly  happen  that  its  action  upon  any  question 
should  endanger  the  institutions  of  the  states,  or  interfere  with  their 
rights  to  manage  matters  strictly  domestic  according  to  the  will  of  their 
own  people."  His  regard  to  the  great  compromise  of  the  constitution, 
was  thus  expressed  :  "  I  believe  that  involuntary  servitude,  as  it  exists 
in  different  states  in  this  confederacy,  is  recognized  by  the  constitution. 
I  believe  that  it  stands  like  any  other  admitted  right ;  and  that  the 
states  where  it  exists  are  entitled  to  efficient  remedies  to  enforce  the  con- 
stitutional provisions.  I  hold  that  the  laws  of  1850,  commonly  called 
the  '  compromise  measures,'  .  .  .  are  strictly  constitutional,  and  to  be 
unhesitatingly  carried  into  effect.  *  *  *  j  fervently  hope  that  the 
question  is  at  rest,  and  that  no  sectional,  or  ambitious,  or  fanatical  ex- 
citement may  again  threaten  the  durability  of  our  institutions,  or  obscure 
the  light  of  our  prosperity." 


CHAPTER  LXXY. 

THE   TERRITORIAL    GOVERNMENTS    OF    KANSAS    AND    NEBRASKA. 

The  33d  congress  commenced  its  1st  session  December  5,  1853. 
Lynn  Boyd,  a  democratic  member  from  Kentucky,  was  elected  speaker, 
having  received  143  votes  against  74  for  all  other  candidates.  . 

The  message  of  President  Pierce  was  the  next  day  communicated  to 
congress.  Besides  the  ordinary  subjects  of  legislation  requiring  the 
attention  of  congress,  the  slavery  question  was  again  introduced.  Con- 
sidering the  question  as  effectually  settled,  he  thus  declared  his  purpose 
of  leaving  it  undisturbed : 

*'  It  is  no  part  of  my  purpose  to  give  prominence  to  any  subject  which 
may  properly  be  regarded  as  set  at  rest  by  the  deliberate  judgment  of 
the  people.  But  while  the  present  is  bright  with  promise,  and  the 
future  full  of  demand  and  inducement  for  the  exercise  of  active  intelli- 
gence, the  past  can  never  be  without  useful  lessons  of  admonition  and 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    TERRITORIES.  941 

instruction.  If  its  dangers  serve  not  as  beacons,  they  will  evidently  fail 
to  fulfill  the  object  of  a  wise  design.  When  the  grave  shall  have  closed 
over  all  who  are  now  endeavoring  to  meet  the  obligations  of  duty,  the 
year  1850  will  be  recurred  to  as  a  period  filled  with  anxious  apprehen- 
sion. A  successful  war  had  just  terminated.  Peace  brought  with  it  a 
vast  augmentation  of  territory.  Disturbing  questions  arose,  bearing 
upon  the  domestic  institutions  of  one  portion  of  the  confederacy,  and 
involving  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  states.  But,  notwithstanding 
differences  of  opinion  and  sentiment,  which  then  existed  in  relation  to 
details  and  specific  divisions,  the  acquiescence  of  distinguished  citizens, 
whose  devotion  to  the  union  can  never  be  doubted,  had  given  renewed 
vigor  to  our  institutions,  and  restored  a  sense  of  repose  and  security  to 
the  public  mind  throughout  the  confederacy.  That  this  repose  is  to 
suffer  no  shock  during  my  of&cial  term,  if  I  have  power  to  avert  it,  those 
who  placed  me  here  may  be  assured." 

Notwithstanding  the  determination,  thus  explicitly  expressed,  to 
endeavor  to  prevent  a  renewal  of  the  agitation  of  this  question,  a  mea- 
sure was  already  in  train  which,  before  the  session  was  far  advanced, 
gave  the  premonition  of  a  "  shock  "  even  more  violent  than  any  which 
had  preceded  it.  On  the  first  day  of  the  session,  the  day  before  the 
delivery  of  the  message,  senator  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  gave  notice  of  a  bill 
to  establish  a  territorial  government  for  Nebraska.  On  the  14th  it  was 
introduced  and  referred  to  the  committee  on  territories ;  and  the  next 
day  it  was  reported  by  Mr.  Douglas,  chairman  of  that  committee,  with 
amendments. 

Some  doubts  having  been  expressed,  whether  the  amendments  repealed 
the  Missouri  compromise,  a  special  report  was  made  on  the  4th  of 
January,  1854,  so  amending  the  bill  as  to  leave  no  doubt  that  that  com- 
promise had  been  superseded  by  the  acts  of  1850.  These  measures 
were  said  to  '*  rest  upon  the  great  principles  of  self-government,  that  the 
people  should  be  allowed  to  decide  the  questions  of  their  domestic  insti- 
tutions for  themselves."  This  report  which  proposed  to  open  all  that 
vast  territory  to  the  introduction  of  slavery,  produced  a  general  sensa- 
tion throughout  the  whole  union,  and  revived  the  agitation  to  a  degree 
never  exceeded.  And  what  excited  special  wonder,  was,  that  such  a 
proposition  should  be  voluntarily  and  gratuitously  tendered  to  the  south ; 
which  was  not  easily  accounted  for,  except  on  the  supposition  that  it  had 
been  prompted  by  political  aspirations. 

On  the  1 6th  of  January,  Mr.  Dixon,  of  Kentucky,  gave  notice  of  an 
amendment  to  exempt  the  territory  from  the  application  of  the  Missouri 
compromise. 

The  southern  boundary  of  the  proposed  territory  had  been  fixed  on 


942  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

the  parallel  of  36°  30'.  On  having  been  informed  that  that  boundary 
would  divide  the  Cherokee  country,  Mr.  Douglas,  on  the  23d  of  Janu- 
ary, reported  in  favor  of  taking  the  line  of  the  37th  degree,  so  as  to  run 
between  the  Cherokees  and  the  Osages.  He  said  also,  that  two  agents 
elected  by  the  people  of  that  territory  had  arrived  with  petitions  for  two 
territories,  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  to  be  divided  on  the  40th  parallel  of 
latitude.  This  proposition  had  received  the  approval  of  the  representa- 
tives of  Iowa  and  Missouri ;  and  the  committee  therefore  reported  a 
substitute  for  the  bill  before  the  senate,  providing  for  the  division  of 
the  territory. 

The  debate  on  the  bill  was  opened  by  Mr.  Douglas,  on  the  30th  of 
January.  In  justification  of  his  proposition  to  leave  the  whole  territory 
open  to  slavery,  he  insisted  that  the  Missouri  compromise  had  been  re- 
pealed. One  of  the  grounds  upon  which  this  declaration  was  founded,  was 
the  action  of  congress  in  1848,  after  the  acquisition  of  territory  from  Mexi- 
co, when  the  senate  voted  into  a  bill  a  provision  to  extend  the  Missouri 
compromise  line  westward  to  the  Pacific  ocean ;  which  provision  was 
defeated  in  the  house.  This  defeat  of  that  proposition  Mr.  D.  construed 
into  an  abandonment  of  the  compromise.  It  was  this  defeat  of  that 
compromise  that  created  the  struggle  of  1850,  and  the  necessity  for 
making  the  new  compromise  of  that  year ;  the  leading  feature  of  which 
was  non-intervention  by  congress  as  to  slavery  in  the  territories — leaving 
the  question  to  be  settled  by  the  people  therein.  It  was  of  universal 
application — to  the  country  both  north  and  south  of  36°  30'. 

Mr.  D.  said  the  legal  efi"ect  of  this  bill,  if  passed,  was  neither  to  legis- 
late slavery  into  nor  out  of  these  territories,  but  to  leave  the  people  to 
do  as  they  pleased.  And  why  should  any  man,  north  or  south,  object 
to  this  principle  ?  It  was  by  the  operation  of  this  principle,  and  not  by 
any  dictation  from  the  federal  government,  that  slavery  had  been  abolish- 
ed in  half  of  the  twelve  states  in  which  it  existed  at  the  time  of  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution. 

In  regard  to  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  Mr.  D.  said :  "  In  1850,  we  who 
resisted  any  attempt  to  force  institutions  upon  the  people  of  those 
territories  inconsistent  with  their  wishes  and  their  right  to  decide  for 
themselves,  were  denounced  as  slavery  propagandists.  Every  one  of  us 
who  was  in  favor  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  was  arraigned  for 
having  advocated  a  principle  purposing  to  introduce  slavery  into  those 
territories,  and  the  people  were  told,  and  made  to  believe,  that,  unless 
we  prohibited  it  by  act  of  congress,  slavery  would  necessarily  and  inevi- 
tably be  introduced  into  these  territories. 

"  Well,  sir,  we  did  establish  the  territorial  governments  of  Utah  and 
New  Mexico  without  any  prohibition.     We  gave  to  these  abolitionists 


SLAVERY   IN    THE    TERPaTORIES.  943 

a  full  opportunity  of  proviDg  whether  their  predictions  would  prove  true 
or  false.  Years  have  rolled  round,  and  the  result  is  before  us.  The 
people  there  have  not  passed  any  law  recognizing,  or  establishing,  or 
introducing,  or  protecting  slavery  in  the  territories. 

"  I  do  not  like,  I  never  did  like,  the  system  of  legislation  on  our  part, 
by  which  a  geographical  line,  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature,  and 
climate,  and  soil,  and  of  the  laws  of  God,  should  be  run  to  establish 
institutions  for  a  people  contrary  to  their  wishes ;  yet,  out  of  a  regard 
for  the  peace  and  C[uiet  of  the  country,  out  of  respect  for  past  pledges, 
and  out  of  a  desire  to  adhere  faithfully  to  all  compromises,  I  sustained 
the  Missouri  compromise  so  long  as  it  was  in  force,  and  advocated  its 
extension  to  the  Pacific  ocean.  Now,  when  that  has  been  abandoned, 
when  it  has  been  superseded,  when  a  great  principle  of  self-government 
has  been  substituted  for  it,  I  choose  to  cling  to  that  principle,  and  abide 
in  good  faith,  not  only  by  the  letter,  but  by  the  spirit  of  the  last  com- 
promise. 

''  Sir,  I  do  not  recognise  the  right  of  the  abolitionists  of  this  country 
to  arraign  me  for  being  false  to  sacred  pledges,  as  they  have  done  in 
their  proclamations.  Let  them  show  when  and  where  I  have  ever  pro- 
posed to  violate  a  compact.  I  have  proved  that  I  stood  by  the  compact 
of  1820  and  1845,  and  proposed  its  continuance  and  observance  in  1848. 
I  have  proved  that  the  free-soilers  and  abolitionists  were  the  guilty 
parties  who  violated  that  compromise  then.  I  should  like  to  compare 
notes  with  these  abolition  confederates  about  adherence  to  compromises. 
When  did  they  stand  by  or  approve  of  any  one  that  was  ever  made  ? 

"  Did  not  every  abolitionist  and  free-soiler  in  America  denounce  the 
Missouri  compromise  in  1820?  Did  they  not  for  years  hunt  down 
ravenously,  for  his  blood,  every  man  who  assisted  in  making  that  com- 
promise ?  Did  they  not  in  1845,  when  Texas  was  annexed,  denounce 
all  of  us  who  went  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  and  for  the  continuation 
of  the  Missouri  compromise  line  through  it  ?  Did  they  not,  in  1848, 
denounce  me  as  a  slavery  propagandist  for  standing  by  the  principles  of 
the  Missouri  compromi^a,  and  proposing  to  continue  it  to  the  Pacific 
ocean  ?  Did  they  not  themselves  violate  and  repudiate  it  then  ?  Is 
not  the  charge  of  bad  faith  true  as  to  every  abolitionist  in  America, 
instead  of  being  true  as  to  me  and  the  committee,  and  those  who  advo- 
cate this  bill  ? 

"They  talk  about  the  bill  being  a  violation  of  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850.  Who  can  show  me  a  man  in  either  house  of  congress  who 
was  in  favor  of  those  compromise  measures  in  1850,  and  who  is  not  now 
in  favor  of  leaving  the  people  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas  to  do  as  they 
please  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  according  to  the  principle  of  my 


944  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

bill  ?  Is  tlicre  one  ?  If  so,  I  have  not  heard  of  him.  This  tornado 
has  been  raised  by  abolitionists,  and  abolitionists  alone.  They  have 
made  an  impression  upon  the  public  mind,  in  the  way  in  which  I  have 
mentioned,  by  a  falsification  of  the  law  and  the  facts ;  and  this  whole 
organization  against  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  is  an  abolition 
movement.  I  presume  they  had  some  hope  of  getting  a  few  tender- 
footed  democrats  into  their  plot ;  and,  acting  on  what  they  supposed 
they  might  do,  they  sent  forth  publicly  to  the  world  the  falsehood  that 
their  address  was  signed  by  the  senators  and  a  majority  of  the  repre- 
sentatives from  the  state  of  Ohio ;  but  when  we  come  to  examine  signa- 
tures, we  find  no  one  whig  there,  no  one  democrat  there ;  none  but  pure, 
unmitigated,  unadulterated  abolitionists," 

On  the  3d  of  February,  Mr.  Chase,  senator  from  Ohio,  moved  to 
strike  out  from  the  bill,  the  words,  "  was  superseded  by  the  principles  of 
the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  compromise  measures,  and," 
so  that  the  clause  would  read : 

"  That  the  constitution,  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States  which  are 
not  locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  within  the 
said  territory  of  Nebraska  as  elsewhere  within  the  United  States,  except 
the  eighth  section  of  the  act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri 
into  the  union,  approved  March  6,  1820,  which  is  hereby  declared  inope- 
rative." 

Mr.  Chase  then  proceeded  to  reply  to  Mr.  Douglas  : 

"  Mr.  President,  I  had  occasion,  a  few  days  ago,  to  expose  the  utter 
groundlessness  of  the  personal  charges  made  by  the  senator  from  Illinois 
(Mr.  Douglas)  against  myself  and  the  other  signers  of  the  independent 
democratic  appeal.  I  now  move  to  strike  from  this  bill  a  statement 
which  I  will  to-day  demonstrate  to  be  without  any  foundation  in  fact  or 
history.  I  intend  afterwards  to  move  to  strike  out  the  whole  clause 
annulling  the  Missouri  prohibition.  #  #  # 

"  A  few  days  only  have  elapsed  since  the  congress  of  the  United  States 
assembled  in  this  capitol.  Then  no  agitation  seemed  to  disturb  the  po- 
litical elements.  Two  of  the  great  political  parties  of  the  country,  in 
their  national  conventions,  had  announced  that  slavery  agitation  was  at 
an  end,  and  that  henceforth  that  subject  was  not  to  be  discussed  in  con- 
gress or  out  of  congress.  The  president,  in  his  annual  message,  had 
referred  to  this  state  of  opinion,  and  had  declared  his  fixed  purpose  to 
maintain,  as  far  as  any  responsibility  attached  to  him,  the  quiet  of  the 
country. 

"  The  agreement  of  the  two  old  political  parties,  thus  referred  to  by 
the  chief  magistrate  of  the  country  was  complete,  and  a  large  majority 
of  the  American  people  seemed  to  acquiesce  in  the  legislation  of  which 


SLAVERY     IN    THE    TERRITORIES.  945 

he  spoke.  A  few  of  us,  indeed,  doubted  the  accuracy  of  these  state- 
ments, and  the  permanency  of  this  repose.  We  never  believed  that  the 
acts  of  1850  would  prove  to  be  a  permanent  adjustment  of  the  slavery 
question.  #  *  « 

"  But,  sir,  we  only  represented  a  small,  though  vigorous  and  growing 
party  in  the  country.  Our  number  was  small  in  congress.  By  some  we 
were  regarded  as  visionaries — by  some  as  factionists  ;  while  almost  all 
agreed  in  pronouncing  us  mistaken.  And  so,  sir,  the  country  was  at 
peace.  As  the  eye  swept  the  entire  circumference  of  the  horizon  and 
upward  to  mid-heaven,  not  a  cloud  appeared ;  to  common  observation 
there  was  no  mist  or  stain  upon  the  clearness  of  the  sky.  But  suddenly 
all  is  changed ;  rattling  thunder  breaks  from  the  cloudless  firmament. 
The  storm  bursts  forth  in  fury.  *  *  *  A.nd  now  we  find  ourselves 
in  the  midst  of  an  agitation,  the  end  and  issue  of  which  no  man  can 
foresee. 

"  Now,  sir,  who  is  responsible  for  this  renewal  of  strife  and  contro- 
versy ?  Not  we,  for  we  have  introduced  no  question  of  territorial 
slavery  into  congress — not  we,  who  are  denounced  as  agitators  and  fac- 
tionidts.  No,  sir :  the  quietists  and  the  finalists,  have  become  agitators ; 
they  who  told  us  that  all  agitation  was  quieted,  and  that  the  resolutions 
of  the  political  conventions  put  a  final  period  to  the  discussion  of  slavery. 

"  This  will  not  escape  the  observation  of  the  country.  It  is  slavery 
that  renews  the  strife.  It  is  slavery  that  again  wants  room.  It  is 
slavery  with  its  insatiate  demand  for  more  slave  territory  and  more  slave 
states. 

"  And  what  does  slavery  ask  for  now  ?  Why,  sir,  it  demands  that  a 
time-honored  and  sacred  compact  shall  be  rescinded — a  compact  which 
has  endured  through  a  whole  generation — a  compact  which  has  been  uni- 
versally regarded  as  inviolable,  north  and  south — a  compact,  the  consti- 
tutionality of  which  few  have  doubted,  and  by  which  all  have  consented 
to  abide. 

"  It  will  not  answer  to  violate  such  a  compact  without  a  pretext. 
Some  plausible  ground  must  be  discovered  or  invented  for  such  an  act ; 
and  such  a  ground  is  supposed  to  be  found  in  the  doctrine  which  was 
advanced  the  other  day  by  the  senator  from  Illinois,  that  the  compromise 
acts  of  1850  '  superseded'  the  prohibition  of  slavery  north  of  36°  30', 
in  the  act  preparatory  for  the  admission  of  Missouri.  Ay,  sir,  '  super- 
seded' is  the  phrase — '  superseded  by  the  principles  of  the  legislation  of 
1850,  commonly  called  the  compromise  measures.' 

"  It  is  against  this  statement,  untrue  in  fact,  and  without  foundation  in 
history,  that  the  amendment  which  I  have  proposed  is  directed." 

Mr.  C.  farther  said,  that,  during  the  long  discussion  of  the  compro- 
60 


946  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

mise  measures  in  1850,  it  was  never  suggested  that  they  were  to  super- 
sede the  Missouri  prohibition.  At  the  last  session,  a  Nebraska  bill 
passed  the  house,  came  to  the  senate,  and  was  reported  on  by  Mr.  Dou- 
glas, who  also  made  a  speech  in  its  favor ;  and  in  all  there  was  not  a 
word  about  repeal  by  supersedure.  The  senator  from  Missouri,  (Mr. 
Atchison,)  had  also  spoken  upon  the  bill,  and  had  distinctly  declared, 
that  the  Missouri  prohibition  was  not  and  could  not  be  repealed."  An 
extract  was  here  read  from  the  speech  of  this  senator,  of  which  this 
is  a  part : 

'  I  have  always  been  of  opinion  that  the  first  great  error  committed  in 
the  political  history  of  this  country  was  the  ordinance  of  1787,  render- 
ing the  Northwest  Territory  free >  territory.  The  next  great  error  was  the 
Missouri  compromise.  But  they  are  both  irremediable.  There  is  no 
remedy  for  them.  We  must  submit  to  them.  I  am  prepared  to  do  it. 
It  is  evident  that  the  Missouri  compromise  cannot  be  repealed.  So  far  as 
that  question  is  concerned,  we  might  as  well  agree  to  the  admission  of 
this  territory  now  as  next  year,  or  five  or  ten  years  hence.' 

"  Now,  sir,  when  was  this  said  ?  It  was  on  the  morning  of  the  4th 
of  March,  just  before  the  close  of  the  last  session,  when  that  Nebraska 
bill,  reported  by  the  senator  from  Illinois,  which  proposed  no  repeal,  and 
suggested  no  supersedure,  was  under  discussion.  I  think,  sir,  that  all 
this  shows  pretty  clearly  that  up  to  the  very  close  of  the  last  session  of 
congress,  nobody  had  ever  thought  of  a  repeal  by  supersedure.  Then  what 
took  place  at  the  commencement  of  the  present  session  ?  The  senator 
from  Iowa,  early  in  December,  introduced  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  the 
territory  of  Nebraska.  I  believe  it  was  the  same  bill  which  was  under 
discussion  here  at  the  last  session,  line  for  line,  and  word  for  word.  If 
I  am  wrong,  the  senator  will  correct  me, 

"  Did  the  senator  from  Iowa  then  entertain  the  idea  that  the  Missouri 
prohibition  had  been  superseded  ?  No,  sir ;  neither  he  nor  any  other 
man  here,  so  far  as  could  be  judged  from  any  discussion,  or  statement, 
or  remark,  had  received  this  notion." 

Mr.  C.  then  referred  to  Mr.  Douglas'  own  report  of  the  4th  of  Janu- 
ary last,  made  only  thirty  days  ago.  Nor  did  this  report  express  the 
opinion  that  the  compromise  acts  of  1850  had  superseded  the  Missouri 
prohibition.  The  committee  said  that  some  affirmed  and  others  denied, 
that  the  Mexican  laws  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  territory  acquired  from 
Mexico,  were  still  in  force  there;  and  they  said  that  the  territorial  compro- 
mise acts  stood  clear  of  these  questions.  They  simply  provided  "  that  the 
states  organized  out  of  these  territories  might  come  in  with  or  without 
slavery  as  they  should  elect,  but  did  not  affect  the  question  whether 
slaves  could  or  could  not  be  introduced  before  the  organization  of  state 
governments.     That  question  was  left  to  judicial  decision." 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    TERRITORIES.  947 

So  in  respect  to  the  Nebraska  territory.  There  were  southern  men 
who  contended  they  would,  by  virtue  of  the  constitution,  take  their  slaves 
thither,  and  hold  them  there,  notwithstanding  the  Missouri  prohibition, 
while  a  majority  of  the  American  people,  north  and  south,  believed  that 
prohibition  constitutional  and  effectual.  But  did  the  committee  propose 
to  repeal  it,  or  suggest  that  it  had  been  superseded  ?  No.  They  said 
they  did  "not  feci  themselves  called  upon  to  enter  into  the  discussion  of 
these  controverted  questions.  Congress  deemed  it  wise  and  prudent  to 
refrain  from  deciding  the  matters  in  controversy  then,  either  by  affirm- 
ing or  repealing  the  Mexican  laws,  or  by  an  act  declaratory  of  the 
true  intent  of  the  constitution  and  the  extent  of  the  protection 
afforded  by  it  to  slave  property  in  the  territories ;  so  your  committee 
are  not  prepared  now  to  recommend  a  departure  from  the  course  pursued 
on  that  memorable  occasion,  either  by  affirming  or  repealing  the  eighth 
section  of  the  Missouri  act,  or  by  any  act  declaratory  of  the  meaning  of 
the  constitution  in  respect  to  the  legal  points  in  dispute." 

"  Mr.  President,  here  are  very  remarkable  facts.  The  committee  ou 
territories  declared  that  it  was  not  wise,  that  it  was  not  prudent,  that  it 
was  not  right  to  renew  the  old  controversy,  and  to  rouse  agitation.  They 
declared  that  they  would  abstain  from  any  recommendation  of  a  repeal 
of  the  prohibition,  or  of  any  provision  declaratory  of  the  construction 
of  the  constitution  in  respect  to  the  legal  points  in  dispute." 

Mr.  Chase  traced  the  progress-  of  the  committee's  bill.  As  published 
January  7th,  it  contained  twenty  sections.  On  the  10th,  it  was  pub- 
lished again  :  it  then  had  twenty-one  sections.  The  omission  of  the  last 
section  was  alleged  to  be  a  clerical  error.  It  was,  he  said,  a  singular 
fact,  that  this  twenty-first  section  was  not  in  harmony  with  the  commit- 
tee's report.  It  in  effect  repealed  the  Missouri  prohibition,  which  the 
committee,  in  their  report,  declared  ought  not  to  be  done.  Was  it  pos- 
sible that  this  was  a  mere  clerical  error  ? 

But  the  addition  of  this  section  did  not  help  the  bill.  It  declared 
among  other  things  that  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories  and  in 
the  states  to  be  formed  therefrom,  was  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the 
people  through  their  representatives.  But  this  did  not  meet  the  appro- 
bation of  southern  gentlemen,  who  claimed  the  right  to  take  their  slaves 
into  the  territories,  notwithstanding  any  prohibition  either  by  congress 
or  by  a  territorial  legislature.  It  was  not  enough  that  the  committee 
had  abandoned  their  report,  and  added  this  twenty-first  section  in  direct 
contravention  of  its  reasonings  and  principles  ;  the  section  must  itself  be 
abandoned  and  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  prohibition  placed  in  a  shape 
which  would  deny  the  slaveholding  claim.  He  next  alluded  to  the 
amendment  of  the  senator  from  Kentucky,  "which came  square  up  to  the 


948  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

repeal  and  to  the  claim.  That  amendment  probably  produced  some  flut- 
tering and  some  consultation.  It  met  the  views  of  southern  senators, 
and  probably  determined  the  shape  which  the  bill  had  finally  assumed." 
For  "  it  was  just  seven  days  after  the  amendment  had  been  offered  by 
senator  Dixon,  that  a  fresh  amendment  was  reported  from  the  commit- 
tee on  territories,  in  the  shape  of  a  new  bill,  enlarged  to  forty  sections. 
This  new  bill  cuts  off  from  the  proposed  territory  half  a  degree  of  lati- 
tude on  the  south,  and  divides  the  residue  into  two  territories."  Thia 
new  bill  thus  provided  for  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  prohibition  : 

"  The  constitution  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States  which  are  not 
locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  within  the  said 
territory  of  Nebraska  as  elsewhere  within  the  United  States,  except  the 
eighth  section  of  the  act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into 
the  union,  approved  March  6,  1820,  which  was  superseded  by  the  princi- 
ples of  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  compromise 
measures,  and  is  therefore  declared  inoperative." 

"  Doubtless,  Mr.  President,  this  provision  operates  as  a  repeal  of  the 
prohibition.  The  senator  from  Kentucky  was  right  when  he  said  it  was 
in  effect  the  equivalent  of  his  amendment.  Those  who  are  willing  to 
break  up  and  destroy  the  old  compact  of  1820,  can  vote  for  this  bill  with 
full  assurance  that  such  will  be  its  effect.  But  I  appeal  to  them  not  to 
vote  for  this  supersedure  clause.  I  ask  them  not  to  incorporate  into  the 
legislation  of  the  country  a  declaration  which  every  one  knows  to  be 
wholly  untrue.  I  have  said  that  this  doctrine  of  supersedure  is  new.  I 
have  now  proved  that  it  is  a  plant  of  but  ten  days'  growth.  It  was  never 
seen  or  heard  of  until  the  23d  day  of  January,  1854.  It  was  upon  that 
day  that  this  tree  of  Upas  was  planted :  we  already  see  its  poison  fruits. 

"  The  provision  I  have  quoted  abrogates  the  Missouri  prohibition.  It 
asserts  no  right  in  the  territorial  legislature  to  prohibit  slavery.  The 
senator  from  Illinois,  in  his  speech,  was  very  careful  to  assert  no  right 
of  legislation  in  a  territorial  legislature,  except  subject  to  the  restrictions 
and  limitations  of  the  constitution.  We  know  well  enough  what  the 
understanding  or  claim  of  southern  gentlemen  is  in  respect  to  these  limita- 
tions and  restrictions.  They  insist  that  by  them  every  territorial  legisla- 
ture is  absolutely  precluded  from  all  power  of  legislation  for  the  prohibi- 
tion of  slavery.  I  warn  gentlemen  who  propose  to  support  this  bill,  that 
their  votes  for  this  provision  will  be  regarded  as  admitting  this  claim." 

Having  thus  endeavored  to  prove  that  the  doctrine  that  the  Missouri 
compromise  had  been  superseded  by  the  acts  of  1850,  was  new,  Mr. 
Chase  attempted  to  prove  it  unfounded.  Mr.  Douglas  had  charged  as  a 
misrepresentation,  the  statement  in  the  appeal  of  the  independent  demo- 
crats, that  the  acts   of  1850  were  intended   to  apply  to  the  territory 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    TERRITORIES.  949 

acquired  from  Mexico  only ;  and  that  they  did  not  touch  the  existing 
exclusion  of  slavery  from  what  was  now  called  Nebraska.  Mr.  Chase 
referred  to  the  report  of  the  committee  of  thirteen  in  1850,  which  dis- 
tinctly stated  that  the  compromise  measures  applied  to  the  nev/ly  acquir3d 
teiritoiy  ;  rj,nd  he  appeakJ  to  Gen  Casf.,  whj  sat  near  him,  whether  any 
thing  had  been  said  in  the  committee  of  thirteen,  or  elsewhere,  which 
indicated  a  purpose  to  apply  them  to  any  other  territory.  (Mr. 
Cass  remained  silent.)  Mr.  C.  therefore  assumed  that  he  was  correct; 
and  he  proceeded  at  length  in  attempting  to  disprove  the  assertion  of  Mr. 
Douglas,  that  the  Missouri  compromise  had  been  superseded.     He  said  : 

"  But  the  senator  from  Illinois  says  that  the  territorial  compromise 
acts  did  in  fact  apply  to  other  territory  than  that  acquired  from  Mexico. 
How  does  he  prove  that?  He  says  that  a  part  of  the  territory  was 
acquired  from  Texas.  But  this  very  territory  which  he  says  was  acquired 
from  Texas,  was  acquired  first  from  Mexico.  After  Mexfico  ceded  it  to 
the  United  States,  Texas  claimed  that  that  cession  inured  to  her  benefit. 
That  claim,  only,  was  relinquished  to  the  United  States.  The  case,  then, 
stands  thus  :  we  acquired  the  territory  from  Mexico  ;  Texas  claimed  it, 
but  gave  up  her  claim.  This  certainly  does  not  disprove  the  assertion 
that  the  territory  was  acquired  from  Mexico,  and  as  certainly  it  does  not 
sustain  the  senator's  assertion,  that  it  was  acquired  from  Texas. 

"  The  senator  next  tells  the  senate  and  the  country,  that  by  the  Utah 
act,  there  was  included  in  the  territory  of  Utah  a  portion  of  the  old 
Louisiana  acquisition,  covered  by  the  Missouri  prohibition,  which  prohi- 
bition was  annulled  as  to  that  portion  by  the  provisions  of  that  act. 
Every  one  at  all  acquainted  with  our  public  history  knows  that  the 
dividing  line  between  Spain  and  the  United  States  extended  due  north 
from  the  source  of  the  Arkansas  to  the  42d  parallel  of  north  latitude. 
That  arbitrary  line  left  within  the  Louisiana  acquisition  a  little  valley 
in  the  midst  of  rocky  mountains,  where  several  branches  of  the  Grand 
river,  one  of  the  affluents  of  the  Colorado,  take  their  rise.  Here  is  the 
map.  Here  spreads  out  the  vast  territory  of  Utah,  more  than  one  hun- 
dred and  eighty-seven  thousand  square  miles.  Here  is  the  little  spot, 
hardly  a  pin's  point  upon  the  map,  which  I  cover  with  the  tip  of  my 
little  finger,  which,  according  to  the  boundary  fixed  by  the  territorial 
bill,  was  cut  off  from  the  Louisiana  acquisition  and  included  in  Utah. 
The  account  given  of  it  in  the  senator's  speech  would  lead  one  to  suppose 
that  it  was  an  important  part  of  the  Louisiana  acquisition.  It  is,  in  fact, 
not  of  the  smallest  consequence.  There  are  no  inhabitants  there.  *  *  * 
It  was  known  that  the  Rocky  Mountain  range  was  very  near  the  arbi- 
trary line  fixed  by  the  treaty,  and  nobody  ever  dreamed  that  the  adop- 
tion of  that  range  as  the  eastern  boundary  of  Utah  would  abrogate  the 


950  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Missouri  prohibition.  The  senator  reported  that  boundary  line.  Bid 
he  tell  the  senate  or  the  country  that  its  establishment  would  have  that 
effect  ?  No,  sir  :  never.  The  assertion  of  the  senator  that  a  *  close  exa- 
mination of  the  Utah  act  clearly  establishes  the  fact  that  it  was  the 
intent,  as  well  as  the  legal  effect  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  to 
supersede  the  Missouri  compromise,  and  all  geographical  and  territorial 
lines,'  is  little  short  of  preposterous.  There  was  no  intent  at  all,  except 
to  make  a  convenient  eastern  boundary  to  Utah,  and  no  legal  effect  at  all 
upon  the  Louisiana  acquisition,  except  to  cut  off  from  it  the  little  valley 
of  the  Middle  Park." 

Mr.  Douglas  had  charged  the  signers  of  the  appeal  with  misrepresent- 
ation in  assuming  that  it  was  the  policy  of  the  fathers  of  the  republic  to 
prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  territories  ceded  by  the  old  states  to  the  union. 
Mr.  Chase  commenced  with  a  reference  to  the  sentiments  of  Jefferson, 
and  traced  the  history  of  the  action  of  the  government  on  the  subject, 
through  a  long  period  of  years,  in  vindication  of  the  statement  contro- 
verted by  Mr.  Douglas. 

Mr.  Chase's  amendment  was  negatived,  13  to  30. 

Mr.  Houston  advocated  the  rights  of  the  Indians  included  within  the 
territories,  who  were  to  be  disturbed  by  this  bill.  He  adverted  to  the 
pledges  made  to  them  from  time  to  time,  and  especially  the  assu- 
rance given  them  in  the  treaty  of  1835,  that  their  lands  beyond  the 
Mississippi  should  never,  without  their  consent,  be  included  within 
the  territorial  limits  or  jurisdiction  of  any  state  or  territory.  He  ob- 
jected to  the  bill  on  other  grounds.  There  was  no  necessity  for  joining 
three  such  important  subjects.  The  organization  of  Nebraska  without  a 
sufficient  population  to  warrant  it,  nearly  all  being  Indian  territory ;  the 
organization  of  Kansas,  entirely  held  and  occupied  by  Indians;  and 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  compromise,  an  important  consideration  for 
the  American  people,  were  all  placed  in  this  omnibus  shape,  and  pre- 
sented for  action.  He  had  on  former  occasions  supported  the  Missouri 
compromise,  assisted  by  the  south,  because  they  regarded  it  as  a  solemn 
compact.  Texas,  he  said,  had  been  admitted  upon  that  principle.  It 
was  an  express  condition  of  her  admission,  that  in  all  new  states  formed 
out  of  her  territory  north  of  36°  30',  slavery  should  be  prohibited. 

Mr.  H.  said  he  had  voted  for  the  compromise  of  1850;  but  he  did 
not  suppose  that  he  was  voting  to  repeal  the  Missouri  compromise.  He 
regarded  it  as  a  final  settlement  of  this  mooted  question,  this  source  of 
agitation.  Great  trials  and  emergencies,  he  feared,  would  arise  between 
the  north  and  the  south.  The  south  was  in  a  minority ;  she  could  not  be 
otherwise.  If  she  should  accede  to  the  violation  of  a  compact  so  sacred 
as  this,  she  would  set  an  example  that  would  be  followed  when  she  did 


SLAVERY    IN    THE    TERRITORIES.  951 

not  desire  it.    He  averred  that  he  would  resist  every  attempt  to  infringe 
or  repeal  the  Missouri  compromise. 

On  the  1 5th  of  February,  the  question  was  taken  on  the  substitute 
of  the  committee  reported  by  Mr.  Douglas,  to  strike  out  the  words  which 
declared  the  Missouri  compromise  to  be  superseded  by  that  of  1S50,  and 
to  insert  the  provision  declaring  the  Missouri  compromise  inconsistent 
with  the  principles  of  non-intervention  of  congress  with  slavery  in  the 
states  and  territories  as  recognized  by  the  legislation  of  1850,  and  inope- 
rative and  void  ;  and  declaring  the  people  free  to  regulate  their  domes- 
tic institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.     The  substitute  was  adopted,  35  to  10. 

Mr.  Chase  then  moved  to  insert  a  provision  permitting  the  legislature 
to  prohibit  slavery. 

Mr.  Badger  held  that,  although  the  Missouri  compromise  of  1820  was 
in  its  terms  applied  to  the  territory  acquired  from  Louisiana,  because  we 
then  had  no  other  territory  whose  destiny  was  to  be  settled  by  an  act  of 
congress ,"  yet  as  it  was  to  be  presumed  that,  if  there  had  been  other 
territory,  it  would  have  been  brought  under  the  operation  of  the  same 
act,  he  regarded  the  provisions  of  that  compromise  as  applicable  to  the 
territory  since  acquired.  It  was  applied  to  Texas  when  that  state  came 
into  the  union.  But  he  maintained  that  the  principle  of  "that  compro- 
mise was  repudiated  by  the  legislation  of  1850.  Its  application  was 
insisted  on  by  southern  senators  in  many  cases  ;  they  asked  nothing,  they 
sought  nothing,  but  the  simple  recognition  of  the  Missouri  compromise 
'ine  ;  but  that  was  refused  them  ;  and  the  territorial  governments  estab- 
Jished  in  1850,  were  constructed  in  utter  disregard  of  that  compromise, 
vhich  he  considered  as  no  longer  obligatory. 

Mr.  Cass  expressed  his  regret  that  this  question  of  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  compromise,  which  opened  all  the  disputed  points  connected 
with  the  subject  of  congressional  action  upon  slavery  in  the  territories, 
had  again  been  brought  before  the  senate.  The  advantages  to  result 
from  the  measure  would  not  outweigh  the  injury  which  the  ill-feeling 
accompanying  the  discussion  would  produce.  Nor  would  the  south  de- 
rive any  benefit  from  it,  as  no  human  power  could  establish  slavery  in 
he  regions  defined  by  these  bills.  He  was,  however,  in  favor  of  the 
nendment  of  the  committee  which  declared  that  the  people,  whether 

the  territories,  or  in  the  states  to  be  formed  from  them,  were  free  to 

Hilate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the 

<5?titution  of  the  United  States. 
"r.    C,  in  the  course  of  his  speech,  replied  to  the  complaints  that 

^ii-juth  was  excluded  from,  and  robbed  of  the  territories,  and  that  they 

^^-appropriated  to  the  north.     "While  he  repeated  the  opinion  that 


952  THE    AMERICAN.    STATESMAN. 

congress  was  not  authorized  to  restrain  a  person,  by  legal  enactment, 
from  taking  slaves  into  any  territory  of  the  United  States,  he  maintained 
that  the  prohibition  of  slavery  by  local  legislation  was  not  an  exclusion 
of  the  aouth  mere  than  the  north,  as  a  slaveholder  and  a  n  jn-slive- 
holder  could  go  into  such  territory  on  equal  terms ;  and  he  denied  the 
charge  of  the  south,  that  congress,  by  admitting  a  state  whose  constitu- 
tion interdicts  slavery,  is  responsible  for  that  act. 

In  relation  to  the  power  of  congress  over  the  territories,  he  contended 
that  the  power  granted  by  the  constitution  to  regulate  and  "  dispose  of 
the  territory  and  other  property  of  the  United  States,"  meant  simply  the 
power  to  dispose  of  the  public  lands,  as  property,  and  did  not  include 
the  power  of  life  and  death  over  the  inhabitants. 

The  debate,  in  which  many  other  senators  participated,  was  continued 
until  the  2d  of  March,  when  Mr.  Clayton  moved  to  amend  so  ^s  to  disallow 
the  right  of  suffrage  and  of  holding  office  to  foreigners  who  had  declared 
on  oath  their  intention  to  become  citizens,  and  had  sworn  to  support  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and  to  confer  this  right  only  on  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States.  This  amendment  was  adopted,  23  to  21. 
The  bill  was  passed  the  next  day,  by  a  vote  of  37  to  14. 

In  the  house,  a  bill  had  been  reported  on  the  31st  of  January,  by  Mr. 
Richardson,  of  Illinois,  for  which,  on  the  8th  of  May,  he  offered  a  sub- 
stitute, which  was  substantially  the  senate  bill,  leaving  out  the  amend- 
ment of  Mr.  Clayton.  On  the  22d,  this  substitute  was  adopted,  11 3  to 
100,  and  sent  to  the  senate,  where,  on  the  25th,  it  was  concurred  in,  35 
to  13. 

Thus  terminated  another  contest  on  a  question  which,  after  a  brief 
slumber,  had  been  unexpectedly,  and,  as  is  generally  believed,  unneceg- 
sarily  revived,  and  which,  from  its  nature,  must  continue  to  be  a  source 
of  sectional  controversy,  so  long  as  the  territory  of  this  republic  shall  be 
divided  between  slavery  and  freedom. 


A  P  P  E  I  D  I  I. 


DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE. 

JUIiY  4:tli,  1776. 


A.    DECLARATION    BY    THE    REPRESENTATIVES    OF     THE     UNITED    STATES     OF 

AMERICA,  IN  [generar]  congress  assembled.* 

When,  in  the  course  of  human  events,  it  becomes  neces- 
sary for  one  people  to  dissolve  the  political  bands  which 
have  connected  them  with  another,  and  to  assume,  among 
the  powers  of  the  earth,  the  separate  and  equal  station  to 
which  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  nature's  Grod  entitle  them, 
a  decent  respect  to  the  opinions  of  mankind,  requires  that 
they  should  declare  the  causes  which  impel  them  to  the 
separation. 

We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident :  that  all  men 
are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Crea- 
tor with  [inherent  ancT]  unalienable  rights ;  that  among  certain 
these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  ;  that 
to  secure  these  rights,  governments  are  instituted  among 
men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the 
governed;  that  whenever  any  form  of  government  becomes 
destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to 
alter  or  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  government,  lay- 
ing its  foundation  on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its 
powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to 
effect  their  safety  and  happiness.  Prudence,  indeed,  will 
dictate,  that  governments  long  established  should  not  be 
changed  for  light  and  transient  causes ;  and  accordingly 
all  experience  hath  shown,  that  mankind  are  more  disposed 
to  suffer  while  evils  are  sufferable,  than  to  right  them- 
selves, by  abolishing  the  forms  to  which  they  are  accus- 

*  Tliis  is  a  copy  of  the  oriofinal  draft  of  Jefferson,  as  reported  to  congress.  The 
parts  struck  out  by  congress  are  printed  in  italics,  and  enclosed  in  brackets ; 
•v-^d  the  parts  added  are  placed  in  the  margin,  or  in  a  concurrent  column. 


954 


THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


tomed.     But  when  a  long  train  of  abuses  and  usurpations 

[begun  at  a  distinguished  period  and]  pursuing  invariably 

the  same  object,  evinces  a  design  to  reduce  them  under 

absolute   despotism,  it  is  their  right,  it  is  their  duty,  to 

throw  off  such  government,  and  to  provide  new  guards  for 

their  future  security.     Such  has  been  the  patient  suffer- 

,  ance   of   these  colonies :  and  such  is  now   the  necessity 

alter         which  constrains  them  to  [expunge']  their  former  systems 

of  government.     The  history  of  the  present  king  of  Great 

repeated      Britain,  is  a  history  of  [unremitting]  injuries  and  usurpa- 

all  having     tions,  [a7nong  which  appears  no  solitary  fact  to  contradict 

the  uniform  tenor  of  the  rest,  but  all  have]  in  direct  object 

the  establishment  of  an  absolute  tyranny  over  these  states. 

To  prove  this,  let  facts  be  submitted  to  a  candid  world, 

[for  the  truth  of  which  we  pledge  a  faith  yet  U7isullied 

by  falsehood.] 

He  has  refused  his  assent  to  laws  the  most  wholesome, 
and  necessary  for  the  public  good. 

He  has  forbidden  his  governors  to  pass  laws  of  immedi- 
ate and  pressing  importance,  unless  suspended  in  their 
operation,  till  his  assent  should  be  obtained ;  and  when  so 
suspended,  he  has  utterly  neglected  to  attend  to  them. 

He  has  refused  to  pass  other  laws  for  the  accommoda- 
tion of  large  districts  of  people,  unless  those  people 
would  relinquish  the  right  of  representation  in  the  legis- 
lature, a  right  inestimable  to  them,  and  formidable  to 
tyrants  only. 

He  has  called  together  legislative  bodies  at  places  unu- 
sual, uncomfortable,  and  distant  from  the  depository  of 
their  public  records,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  fatiguing  them 
into  compliance  with  his  measures. 

He  has  dissolved  representative  houses  repeatedly  [and 
continually]  for  opposing,  with  manly  firmness,  his  inva- 
sions on  the  rights  of  the  people. 

He  has  refused,  for  a  long  time  after  such  dissolutions, 
to  cause  others  to  be  elected,  whereby  the  legislative 
powers,  incapable  of  annihilation,  have  returned  to  the 
people  at  large  for  their  exercise,  the  state  remaining,  in 
the  mean  time,  exposed  to  all  the  dangers  of  invasion  from 
without,  and  convulsions  within. 

He  has  endeavored  to  prevent  the  population  of  these 
states  ;  for  that  purpose  obstructing  the  laws  for  naturali- 
zation of  foreigners,  refusing  to  pass  others  to  encourage 
their  migration  hither,  and  raising  the  conditions  of  new 
appropriations  of  lands. 
obstructed  He  has  [suffered]  the  administration  of  justice,  [totally 
by  to  cease  in  some  of  these  states,]  refusing  his  assent  to  laws 

for  establishing  judiciary  powers. 

He  has  made  [oiir]  judges  dependent  on  his  will  alone 
for  the  tenure  of  their  offices,  and  the  amount  and  pay- 
ment of  their  salaries. 


APPENDIX.  955 

He  has  erected  a  multitude  of  new  offices,  [by  a  self- 
assumed  powe?'^  and  sent  hither  swarms  of  new  officers,  to 
harass  our  people,  and  eat  out  their  substance. 

He  has  kept  among  us  in  times  of  peace,  standing  armies 
[and  ships  of  war]  without  the  consent  of  our  legislatures. 

He  has  affected  to  render  the  military  independent  of, 
and  superior  to,  the  civil  power. 

He  has  combined  with  others,  to  subject  us  to  a  jurisdic- 
tion foreign  to  our  constitutions,  and  unacknowledged  by 
our  laws,  giving  his  assent  to  their  acts  of  pretended 
legislation,  for  quartering  large  bodies  of  armed  troops 
among  us  ;  for  protecting  them  by  a  mock  trial  from  pun- 
ishment for  any  murders  which  they  should  commit  on 
the  inhabitants  of  these  states ;  for  cutting  off  our  trade 
with  all  parts  of  the  world ;  for  imposing  taxes  on  us  with- 
out our  consent ;  for  depriving  us  [  "^  of  the  benefits  of  in  many  cases 
trial  by  jury  ;  for  transporting  us  beyond  seas,  to  be  tried 
for  pretended  offenses ;  for  -abolishing  the  free  system  of 
English  laws,  in  a  neighboring  province ;  establishing 
therein  an  arbitrary  government,  and  enlarging  Us  boun- 
daries, so  as  to  render  it  at  once  an  example  and  fit  instru- 
ment for  introducing  the  same  absolute  rule  into  these 
[states  ;]  for  taking  away  our  charters,  abolishing  our  most  colonics 
valuable  laws,  and  altering  fundamentally  the  forms  of  our 
governments ;  for  suspending  our  own  legislatures,  and 
declaring  themselves  invested  with  power  to  legislate  for 
us,  in  all  cases  whatsoever. 

He  has  abdicated  government  here,  [withdrawing  his  by  declaring 
governors,  and  declaring  us  out  of  his  allegiance  and  us  out  of  his 
'protection.']  protection, 

He  has  plundered  our  seas,  ravaged  our  coasts,  burnt  and  waging 
our  towns,  and  destroyed  the  lives  of  our  people.  war      against 

He  is  at  this  time  transporting  large  armies  of  foreign  us 
mercenaries,  to  complete  the  works  of  death,  desolation, 
and  tyrrany,  already  begun  with  circumstances  of  cruelty 
and  perfidy,  [  ]  unworthy  the  head  of  a  civilized  nation,     scarcely     pa- 
He  has  constrained  our  fellow-citizens  taken  captive  on  ralleled  in  the 
the  high  seas,  to  bear  arms  against  their  country,  to  be-  most   barbar- 
come  the  executioners  of  their  friends  and  brethren,  or  to  ous  ages,  and 
fall  themselves  by  their  hands.  totally 

He  has  [  ]  endeavored  to  bring  on  the  inhabitants  of  excited  do- 
our  frontiers,  the  merciless  Indian  savages,  whose  known  mestic  insur- 
rule  of  warfare,  is  an  undistinguished  destruction  of  all  rections  a- 
ages,  sexes,  and  conditions  [of  existence.]  •  mong  us,  and 

[He  has  incited  treasonable  insurrections  of  our  fellow-  has 
citizens,  with  the  allurements  of  forfeiture,  and  confisca- 
tion of  our  property. 

He  has  waged  cruel  war  against  human  nature  itself, 
violating  its  most  sacred  rights  of  life  and  liberty,  in  the 
persons  of  a  distant  people,  who  never  offended  him,  cap- 
tivating and  carrying  them  into  slavery  in  another  hemis- 


956  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

phere^  or  to  incur  miserable  death  in  their  transportation 
thither.  This  piratical  warfare^  the  opprohium  of  infidel 
powers.,  is  the  warfare  of  the  Christian  king  of  Great 
Britain.  Determined  to  keep  open  a  market.,  where  men 
shovld  be  bought  and  sr.ld.,  hi  has  proHitut^d  his  nefativG 
for  suppressing  every  legiyJative  attempt  to  prrohibtt  or  co 
restrain  this  execrable  cominerce.  And  that  this  assem- 
blage of  horrm's  might  want  no  fact  of  distinguished  die., 
he  is  now  exciting  those  very  people  to  rise  in  arms 
among  us,  and  to  purchase  that  liberty  of  which  he  has 
deprived  them,  by  murdering  the  people  on  whom  he  also 
obtruded  them  :  thus  paying  off  former  crimes  committed 
against  the  liberties  of  one  people,  with  crimes  which  he 
urges  them  to  commit  against  the  lives  of  another. '\ 

In  every  stage  of  these  oppressions,  we  have  petitioned 
for  redress,  in  the  most  humble  terms  ;  our  repeated  peti- 
tions have  been  answered  only  by  repeated  injuries. 
A  prince  whose  character  is  thus  marked  by  every  act 
free  which  may  define  a  tyrant,  is  unfit  to  be  the  ruler  of  a  [  ] 

people,  \who  mean  to  be  free.  Future  ages  will  scarcely 
believe,  that  the  hardiness  of  one  man  adventured,  ivithin 
the  short  compass  of  twelve  years  only,  to  lay  a  founda- 
tion so  broad  and  so  undisguised  for  tyranny,  over  a 
people  fostered  and  fixed  in  principles  offreedom.l 

Nor  have  we  been  wanting  in  attentions  to  our  British 
brethren.     We  have  warned  them  from  time  to  time  of 
an  unwarrant-  attempts  by  their  legislature,  to  extend  \a\  jurisdiction 
able  over  \these  our  states.]     We  have  reminded  them  of  the 

'  us  circumstances  of  our    emigration    and  settlement  here, 

;  [no  one  of  which  could  warrant  so  strange  a  pretension  : 

that  these  were  effected  at  the  expense  of  our  own  blood  and 
treasure,  unassisted  by  the  wealth  or  the  strength  of  Great 
Britain :  that  in  constituting  indeed  our  several  forms  of 
government,  we  had  adopted  one  common  king,  thereby 
laying  a  foundation  for  perpetual  league  and  amity  with 
them,  but  that  submission  to  their  parliament,  was  no 
part  of  our  constitution,  nor  ever  in  idea,  if  history  may 
have         be  credited,  and]  we  [  ]  appealed  to  their  native  justice  and 
and  we   have  magnanimity,  [as  well  as  to]  the  ties  of  our  common  kin- 
conjured  dredto  disavow  these  usurpations  which  [were  likely  to]  in- 
them  by  terrupt  our  connection  and  correspondence.    They  too  have 
would    inevi-  been  deaf  to  the  voice  of  justice  and  of  consanguinity, 
tably  \and  when  occasions  have  been  given  them',  by  the  regular 
course  of  their  laws,  of  removing  from  their  councils  the 
disturbers  of  our  harmony,  they  have  by  their  free  election 
reestablished  them  in  power.     At  this  very  time,  too,  they 
are  permitting  their  chief  magistrate  to  send  over  not  only 
soldiers  of  our  common  blood,  but  Scotch  and  foreign  mer- 
cenaries, to  invade  and  destroy  us.   These  facts  have  given 
the  last  stab  to  agonizing  affection,  and  manly  spirit  bids 
us  to  renounce  forever  these  unfeeling  brethren.    We  must 


APPENDIX. 


957 


endeavor  to  forget  ourf&rmer  love  for  theniy  and  Jiold  %em 
as  we  hold  the  rest  of  mankind^  enemies  hi  war^  in  peace 
friends.  We  might  have  been  a  free  and  a  great  people 
together  ;  but  a  communication  of  granaeur  and  of  free- 
dom^ it  seems^  is  below  their  dig7iity.  Be  it  so,  since  they 
will  have  it.  The  road  to  happiness  and  to  glory  is  open  We  must 
to  us  too.  We  will  tread  it  apart  from  them,  and]  acqui-  therefore 
esce  in  the  necessity  which  denounces  our  [eternal]  sepa- 
ration [  ]  !  and  hold  them 

as  we  hold  the 
rest  of  man- 
kind, enemies 
in  war,  in 
peace  friends. 

We  therefore,  the  representatives 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
general  congress  assembled,  appeal- 
ing to  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the 
world  for  the  rectitude  of  our  inten- 
tions, do  in  the  name,  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  good  people  of  these 
colonies,  solemnly  publish  and  de- 
clare, that  these  united  colonies  are, 
and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free  and 
independent  states ;  that  they  are 
absolved  from  all  allegiance  to  the 
British  crown,  and  that  all  political 
connection  between  them  and  the 
state  of  Great  Britain  is,  and  ought 
to  be,  totally  dissolved ;  and  that, 
as  free  and  independent  states,  they 
have  full  power  to  levy  war,  con- 
clude peace,  contract  alliances,  es- 
tablish commerce,  and  to  do  all 
other  acts  and  things,  which  inde- 
pendent states  may  of  right  do. 

And  for  the  support  of  this  decla- 
tion,  with  a  firm  reliance  on  the 
protection  of  Divine  Providence,  we 
mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our 
lives,  our  fortunes,  and  our  sacred 
honor. 
The  foregoing  declaration  was,  by  order  of  congress,  engrossed  and 
signed  by  the  following  members : 

JOHN  HANCOCK. 

New  Hampshire. — Josiah  Bartlett,  William  Whipple,  Matthew 
Thornton. 

Massachusetts  Bay. — Samuel  Adams,  John  Adams,  Robert  Treat 
Paine,  Elbridge  Gerry. 

Rhode  Island. — Stephen  Hopkins,  William  EUery. 


We  therefore,  the  representatives 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
general  congress  assembled,  do  in 
the  name,  and  by  the  authority  of 
the  good  people  of  these  [states  re- 
ject and  renounce  all  allegiance 
and  subjection  to  the  Icings  of  Great 
Britain,  and  all  others,  who  may 
hereafter  claim  by,  through,  or  un- 
der them ;  we  utterly  dissolve  all 
political  connection  which  may  here- 
tofoi'e  have  subsisted  between  us  and 
the  people  or  parliament  of  Great 
Britain ;  and  finally  we  do  assert 
and  declare  these  colonies  to  be  free 
and  independent  states]  and  that,  as 
free  and  independent  states,  they 
have  full  power  to  levy  war,  con- 
clude peace,  contract  alliances,  es- 
tablish commerce,  and  to  do  all 
other  acts  and  things  which  inde- 
pendent states  may  of  right  do. 
And  for  the  support  of  this  declara- 
tion, we  mutually  pledge  to  each 
other  our  lives,  our  fortunes,  and  our 
sacred  honor. 


958  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Ccmnecticut. — Roger  Sherman,  Samuel  Huiitmgton,William  Williams, 
Oliver  Wolcott. 

New  York. — William  Floyd,  Philip  Livingston,  Francis  Lewis,  Lewis 
Morris. 

New  Jersey. — Richard  Stockton,  John  Witherspoon,  Francis  Hop- 
kinson,  John  Hart,  Abraham  Clark. 

Pennsylvania. — Robert  Morris,  Benjamin  Rush,  Benjamin  Franklin, 
John  Morton,  George  Clymer,  James  Smith,  Greorge  Taylor,  James  Wil- 
son, George  Ross. 

Delaware. — Caesar  Rodney,  George  Read,  Thomas  M'Kean. 

Maryland. — Samuel  Chase,  William  Paca,  Thomas  Stone,  Charles 
Carroll,  of  Carrollton. 

Virginia. — George  Wythe,  Richard  Henry  Lee,  Thomas  Jefferson, 
Benjamin  Harrison,  Thomas  Nelson,  Jr.,  Francis  Lightfoot  Lee,  Carter 
Braxton. 

North  Carolina. — William  Hooper,  Joseph  Hewes,  John  Penn. 

South  Carolina. — Edward  Rutledge,  Thomas  Heyward,  Jr.,  Thomas 
Lynch,  Jr.,  Arthur  Middleton. 

Georgia, — Button  Gwinnett,  Lyman  Hall,  George  Walton. 


ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION. 

TO  ALL  TO  WHOM  THESE  PRESENTS  SHALL  COME,  WE,  THE  TTNDERSIGNED, 
DELEGATES  OF  THE  STATES  AFFIXED  TO  OUR  NAMES,  SEND  GREETING. 

Whereas,  the  delegates  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  congress 
assembled  did,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  November,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  seventy-seven,  and  in  the  second  year 
of  the  independence  of  America,  agree  to  certain  articles  of  confedera- 
tion and  perpetual  union  between  the  states  of  New  Hampshire,  Massa- 
chusetts Bay,  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  Connecticut, 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Yirginia, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia,  in  the  words  following, 
viz: 

Articles  of  Confederation  and  perpetual  Union  hetiveen  the  States  of 
New  Hampshire^  Massachusetts  Bay^  Rhode  Island  and  Providence 
Plantations,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina^ 
and  Georgia. 

Article  1.  The  style  of  this  confederacy  shall  be,  "  the  United 
States  of  America." 

Art.  2.  Each  state  retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence, 
and  every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right,  which  is  not  by  this  confede- 
ration expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States  in  congress  assembled. 

Art.  3.  The  said  states  hereby  severally  enter  into  a  firm  league  of 
friendship  with  each  other  for  their  common  defense,  the  security  of  their 
liberties,  and  their  mutual  and  general  welfare;  binding  themselves  to 
assist  each  other  against  all  force  offered  to,  or  attacks  made  upon  them, 
or  any  of  them,  on  account  of  religion,  sovereignty,  trade,  or  any  other 
pretence  whatever. 

Art.  4.  The  better  to  secure  and  perpetuate  mutual  friendship,  and 
intercourse  among  the  people  of  the  different  states  in  this  union,  the 
free  inhabitants  of  each  of  these  states,  paupers,  vagabonds,  and  fugi- 
tives from  justice,  excepted,  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immu- 
nities of  free  citizens  in  the  several  states  ;  and  the  people  of  each  state 
shall  have  free  ingress  and  regress  to  and  from  any  other  state,  and  shall 
enjoy  therein  all  the  privileges  of  trade  and  commerce,  subject  to  the 
same  duties,  impositions,  and  restrictions,  as  the  inhabitants  thereof 
respectively,  provided  that  such  restrictions  shall  not  extend  so  far  as 
to  prevent  the  removal  of  property  imported  into  any  state  to  any  other 
state,  of  which  the  owner  is  an  inhabitant ;  provided  also,  that  no  impo- 
sition, duties,  or  restriction,  shall  be  laid  by  any  state  on  the  property 
of  the  United  States  or  either  of  them. 

If  any  person  guilty  of  or  charged  with  treason,  felony,  or  other  high 
misdemeanor,  in  any  state,  shall  flee  from  justice,  and  be  found  in  any 


960  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

of  the  United  States,  he  shall,  upon  demand  of  the  governor  or  execu- 
tive power  of  the  state  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered  up  and  removed 
to  the  state  having  jurisdiction  of  his  offense. 

Full  faith  and  credit  shall  be  given  in  each  of  these  states  to  the 
records,  acts,  and  judicial  proceedings  of  the  courts  and  magistrates  of 
every  other  state. 

Art.  5.  For  the  more  convenient  management  of  the  general  interests 
of  the  United  States,  delegates  shall  be  annually  appointed  in  such  man- 
ner as  the  legislature  of  each  state  shall  direct  to  meet  in  congress  on 
the  first  Monday  in  November,  in  every  year,  with  a  power  reserved  to 
each  state  to  recall  its  delegates  or  any  of  them,  at  any  time  within  the 
year,  and  to  send  others  in  their  stead  for  the  remainder  of  the  year. 

No  state  shall  be  represented  in  congress  by  less  than  two,  nor  by 
more  than  seven  members ;  and  no  person  shall  be  capable  of  being  a 
delegate  for  more  than  three  years  in  any  term  of  six  years ;  nor  shall 
any  person,  being  a  delegate,  be  capable  of  holding  any  office  under  the 
United  States,  for  which  he,  or  another  for  his  benefit,  receives  any 
salary,  fees,  or  emoluments  of  any  kind. 

Each  state  shall  maintain  its  own  delegates  in  a  meeting  of  the  states, 
and  while  they  act  as  members  of  the  committee  of  the  states. 

In  determining  questions  in  the  United  States  in  congress  assembled, 
each  state  shall  have  one  vote. 

Freedom  of  speech  and  debate  in  congress  shall  not  be  impeached  or 
questioned  in  any  court  or  place  out  of  congress ;  and  the  members  of 
congress  shall  be  protected  in  their  persons  from  arrests  and  imprison- 
ments, during  the  time  of  their  going  to  and  from  and  attendance  on 
congress,  except  for  treason,  felony,  or  breach  of  the  peace. 

Art.  6.  No  state  without  the  consent  of  the  United  States  in  con- 
gress assembled,  shall  send  any  embassy  to,  or  receive  any  embassy 
from,  or  enter  into  any  conference,  agreement,  alliance,  or  treaty,  with 
any  king,  prince  or  state ;  nor  shall  any  person  holding  any  office  of  profit 
or  trust  under  the  United  States,  or  any  of  them,  accept  of  any  present, 
emolument,  office  or  title  of  any  kind  whatever,  from  any  king,  prince, 
or  foreign  state ;  nor  shall  the  United  States  in  congress' assembled,  or 
any  of  them,  grant  any  title  of  nobility. 

No  two  or  more  states  shall  enter  into  any  treaty,  confederation,  or 
alliance  whatever,  between  them,  without  the  consent  of  the  United  States 
in  congress  assembled,  specifying  accurately  the  purposes  for  which  the 
same  is  to  be  entered  into  and  how  long  it  shall  continue. 

No  state  shall  lay  any  imposts  or  duties  which  may  interfere  with 
any  stipulations  in  treaties  entered  into  by  the  United  States  in  con- 
gress assembled,  with  any  king,  price,  or  state,  in  pursuance  of  any  trea- 
ties already  proposed  by  congress  to  the  courts  of  France  and  Spain. 

No  vessel-of-war  shall  be  kept  up  in  time  of  peace  by  any  state,  except 
such  number  only  as  shall  be  deemed  necessary  by  the  United  States  in 
congress  assembled  for  the  defense  of  such  state  or  its  trade ;  nor  shall 
any  body  of  forces  be  kept  up  by  any  state  in  time  of  peace,  except  such 
number  only  as  in  the  judgment  of  the  United  States  in  congress  assem- 
bled, shall  be  deemed  requisite  to  garrison  the  forts  necessary  for  the 
defense  of  such  state;  but  every  state  shall  always  keep  up  a  well-regu- 
lated and  disciplined  militia,  sufficiently  armed  and  accoutred,  and  shall 


ArPENbix.  961 

provide  and  have  constantly  ready  for  use,  in  public  stores,  a  due  num- 
ber of  field-pieces  and  tents,  and  a  proper  quantity  of  arms,  ammuni- 
tion and  camp  equipage. 

No  state  shall  engage  in  any  war  without  the  consent  of  the  United 
States  in  congress  assembled,  unless  such  state  be  actually  invaded  by 
enemies  or  shall  have  received  certain  advice  of  a  resolution  being  formed 
by  some  nation  of  Indians  to  invade  such  state,  and  the  danger  is  so 
imminent  as  not  to  admit  of  a  delay  till  the  United  States  in  congress 
assembled  can  be  consulted ;  nor  shall  any  state  grant  commissions  to  any 
ships  or  vessels-of-war,  nor  letters  of  marque  or  reprisal,  except  it  be 
after  a  declaration  of  war  by  the  United  States  in  congress  assembled, 
and  then  only  against  the  kingdom  or  state,  and  the  subjects  thereof, 
against  which  war  has  been  so  declared,  and  under  such  regulations  as 
shall  be  established  by  the  United  States  in  congress  assembled,  unless 
such  state  be  infested  by  pirates,  in  which  case  vessels-of-war  may  be 
fitted  out  for  that  occasion,  and  kept  so  long  as  the  danger  shall  continue, 
or'until  the  United  States  in  congress  assembled  shall  determine  otherwise. 

Art.  7.  When  land  forces  are  raised  by  any  state  for  the  common 
defense,  all  officers  of  or  under  the  rank  of  colonel,  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  legislature  of  each  state  respectively,  by  whom  such  forces  shall 
be  raised,  or  in  such  manner  as  such  state  shall  direct,  and  all  vacancies 
shall  be  filled  up  by  the  state  which  first  made  the  appointment. 

Art.  8.  All  charges  of  war,  and  all  other  expenses  that  shall  be 
incurred  for  the  common  defense  or  general  welfare,  and  allowed  by  the 
United  States  in  congress  assembled,  shall  be  defrayed  out  of  a  common 
treasury,  which  shall  be  supplied  by  the  several  states  in  proportion  to 
the  value  of  all  land  within  each  state  granted  to  or  surveyed  for  any 
person,  as  such  land  and  the  buildings  and  improvements  thereon  shall 
be  estimated  according  to  such  mode  as  the  United  States  in  congress 
assembled  shall  from  time  to  time  direct  and  appoint. 

The  taxes  for  paying  that  proportion  shall  be  laid  and  levied  by  the 
authority  and  direction  of  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states,  within 
the  time  agreed  upon  by  the  United  States  in  congress  assembled. 

Art.  9.  The  United  States  in  congress  assembled  shall  have  the  sole 
and  exclusive  right  and  power  of  determining  on  peace  or  war,  except 
in  the  cases  mentioned  in  the  sixth  article — of  sending  and  receiving 
ambassadors — entering  into  treaties  and  alliances ;  provided,  that  no 
treaty  of  commerce  shall  be  made  whereby  the  legislative  power  of  the 
respective  states  shall  be  restrained  from  imposing  such  imposts  and 
duties  on  foreigners  as  their  own  people  are  subjected  to,  or  from  pro- 
hibiting the  exportation  or  importation  of  any  species  of  goods  or  com- 
modities whatsoever— of  establishing  rules  for  deciding  in  all  cases, 
what  captures  on  land  or  water  shall  be  legal,  and  in  what  manner  prizes 
taken  by  land  or  naval  forces  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  shall 
be  divided  or  appropriated — of  granting  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal 
in  times  of  peace — appointing  courts  for  the  trial  of  piracies  and  felo- 
nies committed  on  the  high  seas,  and  establishing  courts  for  receiving 
and  determining  finally  appeals  in  all  cases  of  captures :  provided,  that 
no  member  of  congress  shall  be  appointed  a  judge  of  any  of  the  said 
courts. 

The  United  States  in  congress  assembled  shall  also  be  the  last  resort 

61 


962  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

on  appeal  in  all  disputes  and  differences  now  subsisting  or  that  hereafter 
may  arise  between  two  or  more  states  concerning  boundary,  jurisdiction, 
or  any  other  cause  whatever ;  which  authority  shall  always  be  exercised 
in  the  manner  following  :  whenever  the  legislative  or  executive  authority 
or  lawful  agent  of  any  state  in  controversy  with  another  shall  present  a 
petition  to  congress,  stating  the  matter  in  question,  and  praying  for  a 
hearing,  notice  thereof  shall  be  given  hy  order  of  congress  to  the  legis- 
lative or  executive  authority  of  the  other  state  in  controversy,  and  a  day 
assigned  for  the  appearance  of  the  parties,  by  their  lawful  agents,  who 
shall  then  be  directed  to  appoint  by  joint  consent  commissioners  or 
judges  to  constitute  a  court  for  hearing  and  determining  the  matter  in 
question ;  but  if  they  can  not  agree,  congress  shall  name  three  persons 
out  of  each  of  the  United  States,  and  from  the  list  of  such  persons  each 
party  shall  alternately  strike  out  one,  the  petitioners  beginning  until  the 
number  shall  be  reduced  to  thirteen ;  and  from  that  number  not  less 
than  seven  nor  more  than  nine  names,  as  congress  shall  direct  shall,  in 
the  presence  of  congress,  be  drawn  out  by  lot ;  and  the  persons  whose 
names  shall  be  so  drawn,  or  any  five  of  them,  shall  be  commissioners  or 
judges,  to  hear  and  finally  determine  the  controversy,  so  always  as  a 
major  part  of  the  judges,  who  shall  hear  the  cause,  shall  agree  in  the 
determination :  and  if  either  party  shall  neglect  to  attend  at  the  day 
appointed,  without  showing  reasons  which  congress  shall  judge  sufficient, 
or  being  present  shall  refuse  to  strike,  the  congress  shall  proceed  to 
nominate  three  persons  out  of  each  state,  and  the  secretary  of  congress 
shall  strike  in  behalf  of  such  party  absent  or  refusing ;  and  the  judg- 
ment and  sentence  of  the  court  to  be  appointed  in  the  manner  before 
prescribed,  shall  be  final  and  conclusive ;  and  if  any  of  the  parties  shall 
refuse  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  such  court,  or  to  appear,  or  defend 
the  claim  or  cause,  the  court  shall  nevertheless  proceed  to  pronounce 
sentence  or  judgment,  which  shall  in  like  manner  be  final  and  decisive, 
the  judgment  or  sentence  and  other  proceedings,  being  in  either  case 
transmitted  to  congress,  and  lodged  among  the  acts  of  congress  for  the 
security  of  the  parties  concerned  :  provided,  that  every  commissioner, 
before  he  sits  in  judgment,  shall  take  an  oath,  to  be  administered  by  one 
of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  or  superior  court  of  the  state,  where  the 
cause  shall  be  tried,  "  well  and  truly  to  hear  and  determine  the  matter 
in  question,  according  to  the  best  of  his  judgment,  without  favor,  affec- 
tion, or  hope  of  reward  :"  provided  also,  that  no  state  shall  be  deprived 
of  territory  for  the  benefit  of  the  United  States. 

All  controversies  concerning  the  private  right  of  soil,  claimed  under 
different  grants  of  two  or  more  states,  whose  jurisdiction  as  they 
may  respect  such  lands  and  the  states  which  passed  such  grants  are 
adjusted,  the  said  grants  or  either  of  them  being  at  the  same  time 
claimed  to  have  originated  antecedent  to  such  settlement  of  jurisdiction, 
shall,  on  the  petition  of  either  party  to  the  congress  of  the  United 
States,  be  finally  determined,  as  near  as  may  be,  in  the  same  manner  as 
is  before  prescribed  for  deciding  disputes  respecting  territorial  jurisdic- 
tion between  different  states. 

The  United  States  in  congress  assembled  shall  also  have  the  sole  and 
exclusive  right  and  power  of  regulating  the  alloy  and  value  of  coin 
struck  by  their  own  authority,  or  by  that  of  the   respective  states — 


APPENDIX.  963 

fixing  tlie  standard  of  weights  and  measures  throughout  the  United 
States — regulating  the  trade  and  managing  all  affairs  with  the  Indians 
not  members  of  any  of  the  states  ;  provided  that  the  legislative  right 
of  any  state  within  its  own  limits  be  not  infringed  or  violated — estab- 
lishing and  regulating  postofficcs  from  one  state  t»o  another  throughout 
all  the  United  States,  and  exacting  such  postage  on  the  papers  passing 
through  the  same,  as  may  be  requisite  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the- said 
ofl&ce — appointing  all  officers  of  the  land  forces  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States  excepting  regimental  officers — appointing  all  the  officers 
of  the  naval  forces,  and  commissioning  all  officers  whatever  in  the  ser- 
vice of  the  United  States — making  rules  for  the  government  and  regu- 
lation of  the  said  land  and  naval  forces,  and  directing  their  operations. 

The  United  States  in  congress  assembled  shall  have  authority  to 
appoint  a  committee  to  sit  in  the  recess  of  congress,  to  be  denominated 
*'  a  committee  of  the  states,"  and  to  consist  of  one  delegate  from  each 
state ;  and  to  appoint  such  other  committees  and  civil  officers  as  may 
be  necessary  for  managing  the  general  affairs  of  the  United  States,  under 
their  direction — to  appoint  one  of  their  number  to  preside,  provided  that 
no  person  be  allowed  to  serve  in  the  office  of  president  more  than  one 
year  in  any  term  of  three  years — to  ascertain  the  necessary  sums  of 
money  to  be  raised  for  the  service  of  the  United  States,  and  to  appro- 
priate and  apply  the  same  for  defraying  the  public  expenses — to  borrow 
money  or  emit  bills  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  transmitting 
every  half  year  to  the  respective  states  an  account  of  the  sums  of  money 
so  borrowed  or  emitted — to  build  and  equip  a  navy — to  agree  upon  the 
number  of  land  forces,  and  to  make  requisitions  from  each  state  for  its 
quota,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  white  inhabitants  in  such  state ; 
which  requisition  shall  be  binding,  and  thereupon  the  legislature  of  each 
state  shall  appoint  the  regimental  officers,  raise  the  men,  and  clothe, 
arm,  and  equip  them,  in  a  soldier-like  manner,  at  the  expense  of  the 
United  States ;  and  the  officers  and  men  so  clothed,  armed,  and  equip- 
ped, shall  march  to  the  place  appointed,  and  within  the  time  agreed  on 
by  the  United  States  in  congress  assembled  :  but  if  the  United  States 
in  congress  assembled,  shall,  on  consideration  of  circumstances,  judge 
pix)per  that  any  state  should  not  raise  men  or  should  raise  a  smaller 
number  than  its  quota,  and  that  any  other  state  should  raise  a  greater 
number  of  men  than  the  quota  thereof,  such  extra  number  shall  be 
raised,  officered,  clothed,  armed,  and  equipped,  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  quota  of  such  state,  unless  the  legislature  of  such  state  shall  judge 
that  such  extra  number  can  not  safely  be  spared  out  of  the  same ;  in 
which  case  they  shall  raise,  officer,  clothe,  arm,  and  equip,  as  many  of 
such  extra  number  as  they  judge  can  be  safely  spared.  And  the  officers 
and  men  so  clothed,  armed,  and  equipped,  shall  march  to  the  place 
appointed,  and  within  the  time  agreed  on  by  the  United  States  in  con- 
gress assembled. 

The  United  States  in  congress  assembled  shall  never  engage  in  a  war, 
nor  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  in  time  of  peace,  nor  enter  into 
any  treaties  or  alliances,  nor  coin  money,  nor  regulate  the  value  thereof, 
nor  ascertain  the  sums  and  expenses  necessary  for  the  defense  and  wel- 
fare of  the  United  States  or  any  of  them,  nor  emit  bills,  nor  borrow 
money  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  nor  appropriate  money,  nor 


964  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

agree  upon  the  number  of  vessels-of-war  to  be  built  or  purchased,  or  the 
number  of  land  or  sea  forces  to  be  raised,  nor  appoint  a  commander-in- 
chief  of  the  army  or  navy,  unless  nine  states  assent  to  the  same ;  nor 
shall  a  question  on  any  other  point,  except  for  adjourning  from  day  to 
day,  be  determined,  unless  by  the  votes  of  a  majority  of  the  United 
States  in  congress  assembled. 

The  congress  of  the  United  States  shall  have  power  to  adjourn  to  any 
time  within  the  year,  and  to  any  place  within  the  United  States,  so  that 
no  period  of  adjournment  be  for  a  longer  duration  than  the  space  of  six 
months;  and  shall  publish  the  journal  of  their  proceedings  monthly, 
except  such  parts  thereof  relating  to  treaties,  alliances,  or  military  ope- 
rations, as  in  their  judgment  require  secresy;  and  the  yeas  and  nays  of 
the  delegates  of  each  state  on  any  question  shall  be  entered  on  the  jour- 
nal, when  it  is  desired  by  any  delegate ;  and  the  delegates  of  a  state,  or 
any  of  them,  at  his  or  their  request,  shall  be  furnished  with  a  transcript 
of  the  said  journal,  except  such  parts  as  are  above  excepted,  to  lay 
before  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states. 

Art.  10.  The  committee  of  the  states,  or  any  nine  of  them,  shall  be 
authorized  to  execute,  in  the  recess  of  congress,  such  of  the  powers  of 
congress  as  the  United  States  in  congress  assembled,  by  the  consent  of 
nine  states,  shall  from  time  to  time,  think  expedient  to  vest  them  with ; 
provided  that  no  power  be  delegated  to  the  said  committee,  for  the  exer- 
cise of  which,  by  the  articles  of  confederation,  the  voice  of  nine  states 
in  the  congress  of  the  United  States  assembled  is  requisite. 

Art.  11.  Canada,  acceding  to  this  confederation,  and  joining  in  the 
measures  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  admitted  into,  and  entitled  to, 
all  the  advantages  of  this  Union ;  but  no  other  colony  shall  be  admitted 
into  the  same  unless  such  admission  be  agreed  to  by  nine  states. 

Art.  12.  All  bills  of  credit  emitted,  moneys  borrowed,  and  debts 
contracted,  by  or  under  the  authority  of  congress,  before  the  assembling 
of  the  United  States,  in  pursuance  of  the  present  confederation,  shall 
be  deemed  and  considered  as  a  charge  against  the  United  States,  for 
payment  and  satisfaction  whereof  the  said  United  States  and  the  public 
faith  are  hereby  solemnly  pledged. 

Art.  13.  Every  state  shall  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  United  States 
in  congress  assembled,  on  all  questions  which,  by  this  confederation,  are 
submitted  to  them.  And  the  articles  of  this  confederation  shall  be  inviola- 
bly observed  by  every  state,  and  the  union  shall  be  perpetual;  nor  shall 
any  alteration  at  any  time  hereafter  be  made  in  any  of  them,  unless 
such  alteration  be  agreed  to  in  a  congress  of  the  United  States,  and  be 
afterwards  confirmed  by  the  legislature  of  every  state. 

And  whereas  it  has  pleased  the  great  Grovernor  of  the  world  to  incline 
the  hearts  of  the  legislatures  we  respectively  represent  in  congress,  to 
approve  of  and  to  authorize  us  to  ratify  the  said  articles  of  confedera- 
tion and  perpetual  union  :  know  ye^  that  we,  the  undersigned  delegates, 
by  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority  to  us  given  for  that  purpose,  do, 
by  these  presents,  in  the  name  and  in  behalf  of  our  respective  constitu- 
ents, fully  and  entirely  ratify  and  confirm  each  and  every  of  the  said 
articles  of  confederation  and  perpetual  union,  and  all  and  singular  the 
matters  and  things  therein  contained ;  and  we  do  further  solemly  plight 
and  engage  the  faith  of  our  respective  constituents,  that  they  shall  abide 


APPENDIX.  965 

by  the  determinations  of  the  United  States  in  congress  assembled,  on  all 
questions  which,  by  the  said  confederation,  are  submitted  to  them  ;  and 
that  the  articles  thereof  shall  be  inviolably  observed  by  the  states  we 
respectively  represent ;  and  that  the  union  be  perpetual. 

In  witness  whereof,  we  have  hereunto  set  our  hands,  in  congress. 
Done  at  Philadelphia,  in  the  state  of  Pennsylvania,  the  ninth  day  of 
July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  seventy- 
eight,  and  in  the  third  year  of  the  independence  of  America. 

New  Hampshire. — Josiah  Bartlett,  John  Wentworth,  Jr. 

Massachtisetts  Bay. — John  Hancock,  Samuel  Adams,  Elbridge  Ger- 
ry, Francis  Dana,  James  Lovell,  Samuel  Holten. 

Rhode  Island. — William  Ellery,  Henry  Marchant,  John  Collins. 

Connecticut. — Roger  Sherman,  Samuel  Huntington,  Oliver  Wolcott, 
Titus  Hosmer,  Andrew  Adams. 

New  York. — James  Duane,  Francis  Lewis,  William  Duer,  Gouver- 
neur  Morris. 

Neiv  Jersey. — John  Witherspoon,  Nath.  Scudder. 

Pennsylvania. — Robert  Morris,  Daniel  Roberdeau,  Jonathan  Bayard 
Smith,  William  Clingan,  Joseph  Reed. 

Delaware. — Thomas  M'Kean,  John  Dickinson,  Nicholas  Van  Dyke. 

Maryland. — John  Hanson,  Daniel  Carroll. 

Virginia. — Richard  Henry  Lee,  John  Banister,  Thomas  Adams, 
John  Harvie,  Francis  Lightfoot  Lee. 

North  Carolina. — John  Penn,  Constable  Harnett,  John  Williams. 

South  Carolina. — Henry  Laurens,  William  Henry  Drayton,  John 
Matthews,  Richard  Hudson,  Thomas  Heyward,  Jr. 

Georgia. — John  Walton,  Edward  Telfair,  Edward  Langworthy. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect 
union,  oetablish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  com- 
mon defense,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of 
liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Con- 
stitution for  the  United  States  of  America. 

ARTICLE  I. 

Section  1.  All  legislative  powers  herein  granted  shall  be  vested  in  a 
congress  of  the  United  States,  which  shall  consist  of  a  senate  and  house 
of  representatives. 

Sec.  2.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  be  composed  of  members 
chosen  every  second  year,  by  the  people  of  the  several  states ;  and  the 
electors  in  each  state  shall  have  the  qualifications  requisite  for  electors  of 
the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  state  legislature. 

No  person  shall  be  a  representative  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the 
age  of  twenty-five  years,  and  been  seven  years  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  and  who  shall  not,  when  elected,  be  an  inhabitant  of  that  state  in 
which  he  shall  be  chosen. 

Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  sev- 
eral states  which  may  be  included  within  this  union,  according  to  their 
respective  numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole 
number  of  free  persons,  including  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term  of 
years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  three-fifths  of  all  pther  persons. 
The  actual  enumeration  shall  be  made  within  three  years  after  the  first 
meeting  of  the  congress  of  the  United  States,  and  within  every  subsequent 
term  of  ten  years,  in  such  manner  as  they  shall  by  law  direct.  The  num- 
ber of  representatives  shall  not  exceed  one  for  every  thirty  thousand,  but 
each  state  shall  have  at  least  one  representative ;  and  until  such  enumer- 
ation shall  be  made,  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  shall  be  entitled  to 
choose  iAree;  Massachusetts,  e^o-Ai ;  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plan- 
tations, one;  Connecticut,  ^2;e/  New  York,  six;  New  Jersey,  four  ; 
Pennsylvania,  eight;  Delaware,  one;  Maryland,  six;  Virginia,  ten; 
North  Carolina,  Jive  ;  South  Carolina,  Jive  ;  and  Georgia,  three. 

When  vacancies  happen  in  the  representation  from  any  state,  the 
executive  authority  thereof  shall  issue  writs  of  election  to  fill  such 
vacancies. 

The  house  of  representatives  shall  choose  their  speaker  and  other 
officers,  and  shall  have  the  sole  power  of  impeachment. 

Sec.  3.  The  senate  of  the  United  States  shall  be  composed  of  two 
senators  from  each  state,  chosen  by  the  legislature  thereof,  for  six  years ; 
and  each  senator  shall  have  one  vote. 


APPENDIX.  967 

Immediately  after  they  shall  be  assembled  in  consequence  of  the  first 
election,  they  shall  be  divided  as  equally  as  may  be,  into  three  classes. 
The  seats  of  the  senators  of  the  first  class  shall  be  vacated  at  the  expira- 
tion of  the  second  year ;  of  the  second  class  at  the  expiration  of  the 
fourth  year ;  and  of  the  third  class  at  the  expiration  of  the  sixth  year ; 
so  that  one-third  may  be  chosen  every  second  year;  and  if  vacancies  hap- 
pen, by  resignation  or  otherwise,  during  the  recess  of  the  legislature  of 
any  state,  the  executive  thereof  may  make  temporary  appointments,  until 
the  next  meeting  of  the  legislature,  which  shall  then  fill  such  vacancies. 

No  person  shall  be  a  senator  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  age 
of  thirty  years,  and  been  nine  years  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and 
who  shall  not,  when  elected,  be  an  inhabitant  of  that  state  for  which  he 
shall  be  chosen. 

The  vice-president  of  the  United  States  shall  be  president  of  the 
senate,  but  shall  have  no  vote,  unless  they  be  equally  divided. 

The  senate  shall  choose  their  other  officers,  and  also  a  president  pro 
tempore,  in  the  absence  of  the  vice-president,  or  when  he  shall  exercise 
the  office  of  president  of  the  United  States. 

The  senate  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  all  impeachments  ;  when 
sitting  for  that  purpose,  they  shall  be  on  oath  of  affirmation.  When  the 
president  of  the  United  States  is  tried,  the  chief-justice  shall  preside ; 
and  no  person  shall  be  convicted  without  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds 
of  the  members  present. 

Judgment,  in  cases  of  impeachment,  shall  not  extend  further  than  to 
removal  from  office,  and  disqualification  to  hold  and  enjoy  any  office  of 
honor,  trust,  or  profit,  under  the  United  States ;  but  the  party  convicted 
shall,  nevertheless,  be  liable  and  subject  to  indictment,  trial,  judgment, 
and  punishment,  according  to  law. 

Sec.  4.  The  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  sena- 
tors and  representatives,  shall  be  prescribed  in  each  state  by  the  legisla- 
ture thereof ;  but  the  congress  may  at  any  time,  by  law,  make  or  alter 
such  regulations,  except  as  to  the  places  of  choosing  senators. 

The  congress  shall  assemble  at  least  once  in  every  year ;  and  such 
meeting  shall  be  on  the  first  Monday  in  December,  unless  they  shall  by 
law  appoint  a  diff"erent  day. 

Sec.  5.  Each  house  shall  be  the  judge  of  the  elections,  returns  and 
qualifications  of  its  own  members;  and  a  majority  of  each  shall  consti- 
tute a  quorum  to  do  business ;  but  a  smaller  number  may  adjourn  from 
day  to  day,  and  may  be  authorized  to  compel  the  attendance  of  absent 
members,  in  such  manner  and  under  such  penalties,  as  each  house  may 
provide. 

Each  house  may  determine  the  rules  of  its  proceedings,  punish  its 
members  for  disorderly  behavior,  and  with  the  concurrence  of  two- 
thirds,  expel  a  member. 

Each  house  shall  keep  a  journal  of  its  proceedings,  and  from  time  to 
time  publish  the  same,  excepting  such  parts  as  may,  in  their  judgment, 
require  secrecy ;  and  the  yeas  and  nays  of  the  members  of  either  house, 
on  any  question,  shall,  at  the  desire  of  one-fifth  of  those  present,  be 
entered  on  the  journal. 

Neither  house,  during  the  session  of  congress,  shall,  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  other,  adjourn  for  more  than  three  days,  nor  to  any  other 
place  than  that  in  which  the  two  houses  shall  be  sitting. 


968  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Sec.  6.  The  senators  and  representatives  shall  receive  a  compensation 
for  their  services,  to  be  ascertained  by  law,  and  paid  out  of  the  treasury 
of  the  United  States.  They  shall,  in  all  cases,  except  treason,  felony, 
and  breach  of  the  peace,  be  privileged  from  arrest  during  their  attend- 
ance at  the  session  of  their  respective  houses,  and  in  going  to  and  return- 
ing from  the  same ;  and  for  any  speech  or  debate  in  either  house,  they 
shall  not  be  questioned  in  any  other  place. 

No  senator  or  representative  shall,  during  the  time  for  which  he  was 
elected,  be  appointed  to  any  civil  office  under  the  authority  of  the  United 
States,  which  shall  have  been  created,  or  the  emoluments  whereof  shall 
have  been  increased,  during  such  time ;  and  no  person  holding  any  office 
under  the  United  States,  shall  be  a  member  of  either  house  during  his 
continuance  in  office. 

Sec.  7  All  bills  for  raising  revenue  shall  originate  in  the  house  of 
representatives ;  but  the  senate  may  propose,  or  concur  with,  amend- 
ments, as  on  other  bills. 

Every  bill  which  shall  have  passed  the  house  of  representatives  and 
the  senate,  shall,  before  it  become  a  law,  be  presented  to  the  president  of 
the  United  States ;  if  he  approve,  he  shall  sign  it ;  but  if  not,  he  shall 
return  it,  with  his  objections,  to  that  house  in  which  it  shall  have  origi- 
nated, who  shall  enter  the  objections  at  large  on  their  journal,  and  pro- 
ceed to  reconsider  it.  If,  after  such  reconsideration,  two-thirds  of  that 
house  shall  agree  to  pass  the  bill,  it  shall  be  sent,  together  with  the 
objections,  to  the  other  house,  by  which  it  shall  likewise  be  reconsidered, 
and,  if  approved  by  two-thirds  of  that  house,  it  shall  become  a  law. 
But,  in  all  such  cases,  the  votes  of  both  houses  shall  be  determined  by 
yeas  and  nays,  and  the  names  of  the  persons  voting  for  and  against  the 
bill  shall  be  entered  on  the  journal  of.  each  house  respectively.  If  any 
bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the  president  within  ten  days  (Sundays 
excepted)  after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the  same  shall  be  a 
law,  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it,  unless  the  congress,  by  their 
adjournment,  prevent  its  return,  in  which  case  it  shall  not  be  a  law. 

Every  order,  resolution  or  vote,  to  which  the  concurrence  of  the  sen- 
ate and  house  of  representa.tives  may  be  necessary,  (except  on  a  question 
of  adjournment,)  shall  be  presented  to  the  president  of  the  United  States, 
and  before  the  same  shall  take  effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him,  or,  being 
disapproved  by  him,  shall  be  repassed  by  two-thirds  of  the  senate  and 
house  of  representatives,  according  to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed 
in  the  case  of  a  bill. 

Sec.  8.    The  congress  shall  have  power  : 

To  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,  to  pay  the  debts 
and  provide  for  the  common  defense  and  general  welfare  of  the  United 
States ;  but  all  duties,  imposts  and  excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout 
the  United  States : 

To  borrow  money  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States  : 

To  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  and  among  the  several 
states,  and  with  the  Indian  tribes  : 

To  establish  a  uniform  rate  of  naturalization,  and  uniform  laws  on  the 
subject  of  bankruptcies  throughout  the  United  States  : 

To  coin  money ;  to  regulate  the  value  thereof,  and  of  foreign  coin ; 
and  fix  the  standard  of  weights  and  measures : 


APPENDIX.  669 

To  provide  for  the  punishment  of  counterfeiting  the  securities  and 
current  coin  of  the  United  States  : 

To  establish  post  offices  and  post  roads  : 

To  promote  the  progress  of  science  and  useful  arts,  by  securing  for 
limited  times,  to  authors  and  inventors,  the  exclusive  right  to  their 
respective  writings  and  discoveries : 

To  constitute  tribunals  inferior  to  the  supreme  court : 

To  define  and  punish  piracies  and  felonies  committed  on  the  high  seas, 
and  offenses  against  the  law  of  nations  : 

To  declare  war;  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal;  and  make 
rules  concerning  captures  on  land  and  water : 

To  raise  and  support  armies ;  but  no  appropriation  of  money  to  that 
use  shall  be  for  a  longer  term  than  two  years : 

To  provide  and  maintain  a  navy : 

To  make  rules  for  the  government  and  regulation  of  the  land  and 
naval  forces : 

To  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the 
union,  suppress  insurrections,  and  repel  invasions : 

To  provide  for  organizing,  arming  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and 
for  governing  such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States ;  reserving  to  the  states  respectively,  the  appointment 
of  the  officers,  and  the  authority  of  training  the  militia,  according  to  the 
discipline  prescribed  by  congress  : 

To  exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  over  such 
district  (not  exceeding  ten  miles  square)  as  may,  by  cession  of  particular 
states,  and  the  acceptance  of  congress,  become  the  seat  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  and  to  exercise  like  authority  over  all  places  pur- 
chased by  the  consent  of  the  legislature  of  the  state  in  which  the  same 
shall  be,  for  the  erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals,  dockyards,  and 
other  needful  buildings  :  And, 

To  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying 
into  execution  the  foregoing  powers,  and  all  other  powers  vested  by  this 
constitution  in  the  government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  depart- 
ment or  officer  thereof 

Sec.  9.  The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the 
states  now  existing,  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited 
by  the  congress  prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight ; 
but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  importation,  not  exceeding 
ten  dollars  for  such  person : 

The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended 
unless  when,  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion,  the  public  safety  may 
require  it. 

No  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  law  shall  be  passed. 

No  capitation  or  other  direct  tax  shall  be  laid,  unless  in  proportion  to 
the  census  or  enumeration  herein  before  directed  to  be  taken. 

No  tax  or  duty  shall  be  laid  on  articles  exported  from  any  state. 
No  preference  shall  be  given,  by  any  regulation  of  commerce  or  rev- 
enue, to  the  ports  of  one  state,  over  those  of  another ;  nor  shall  vessels 
bound  to  or  from  one  state  be  obliged  to  enter,  clear,  or  pay  duties  in 
another. 

No  money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury,  but  in  consequence  of 


970  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

appropriations  made  by  law ;  and  a  regular  statement  and  account  of  the 
receipts  and  expenditures  of  all  public  money  shall  be  published  from 
time  to  time. 

No  title  of  nobility  shall  be  granted  by  the  United  States;  and  no 
person  holding  any  office  of  profit  or  trust  under  them  shall,  without  the 
consent  of  the  congress,  accept  of  any  present,  emolument,  office,  or  title 
of  any  kind  whatever,  from  any  king,  prince,  or  foreign  state. 

Sec.  10.  No  state  shall  enter  into  any  treaty,  alliance,  or  confedera- 
tion ;  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal ;  coin  money  ;  emit  bills  of 
credit ;  make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  coin  a  tender  in  payment  of 
debts ;  pass  any  bill  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  law,  or  law  impairing  the 
obligation  of  contracts  ;  or  grant  any  title  of  nobility. 

No  state  shall,  without  the  consent  of  the  congress,  lay  any  imposts 
or  duties  on  imports  or  exports,  except  what  may  be  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  executing  its  inspection  laws  :  and  the  net  produce  of  all  duties 
and  imposts  laid  by  any  state  on  imports  or  exports,  shall  be  for  the  use 
of  the  treasury  of  the  United  States  ;  and  all  such  laws  shall  be  subject 
to  the  revision  and  control  of  the  congress.  No  state  shall,  without  the 
consent  of  congress,  lay  any  duty  of  tonnage,  keep  troops  or  ships  of 
war  in  time  of  peace,  enter  into  any  agreement  or  compact  with  another 
state,  or  with  a  foreign  power,  or  engage  in  war,  unless  actually  invaded, 
or  in  such  imminent  danger  as  will  not  admit  of  delay. 

ARTICLE    11. 

Section  1.  The  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in  a  president  of  the 
United  States  of  America.  He  shall  hold  his  office  during  the  term  of 
four  years,  and,  together  with  the  vice-president,  chosen  for  the  same 
term,  be  elected  as  follows  : 

Each  state  shall  appoint,  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  thereof 
may  direct,  a  number  of  electors,  equal  to  the  whole  number  of  senators 
and  representatives  to  which  the  state  may  be  entitled  in  the  congress  ; 
but  no  senator  or  representative,  or  person  holding  an  office  of  trust  or 
profit  under  the  United  States,  shall  be  appointed  an  elector. 

The  electors  shall  meet  in  their  respective  states,  and  vote  by  ballot 
for  two  persons,  of  whom  one  at  least  shall  not  be  an  inhabitant  of  the 
same  state  with  themselves.  And  they  shall  make  a  list  of  all  the  per- 
sons voted  for,  and  of  the  number  of  votes  for  each,  which  list  they  shall 
sign  and  certify,  and  transmit,  sealed,  to  the  seat  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  directed  to  the  president  of  the  senate.  The  president 
of  the  senate  shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  senate  and  house  of  represen- 
tatives, open  all  the  certificates,  and  the  votes  shall  then  be  counted. 
The  person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  shall  be  the  president, 
if  suoh  number  be  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  electors  appointed  ; 
and  if  there  'be  more  than  one  who  have  such  majority,  and  have  an  equal 
number  of  votes,  then  the  house  of  representatives  shall  immediately 
choose  by  ballot  one  of  them  for  president;  and  if  no  person  have 
a  majority,  then,  from  the  five  highest  on  the  list,  the  said  house  shall, 
in  like  manner,  choose  the  president.  But  in  choosing  the  president, 
the  votes  shall  be  taken  by  states,  the  representation  from  each  state 
having  one  vote :  a  quorum  for  this  purpose  shall  consist  of  a  member 
or  members  from  two-thirds  of  the  states,  and  a  majority  of  the  states 


APPENDIX.  971 

shall  be  necessary  to  a  choice.  In  every  case,  after  the  choice  of  the 
president,  the  person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  of  the  electors, 
shall  be  the  vice-president.  But  if  there  should  remain  two  or  more 
who  have  equal  votes,  the  senate  shall  choose  from  them,  by  ballot,  the 
vice-president. 

[By  the  12th  article  of  amendment,  the  above  clause  has  been 
repealed.] 

The  congress  may  determine  the  time  of  choosing  the  electors,  and  the 
day  on  which  they  shall  give  their  votes,  which  day  shall  be  the  same 
throughout  the  United  States. 

No  person,  except  a  natural  born  citizen,  or  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  this  constitution,  shall  be  eligible 
to  the  office  of  president ;  neither  shall  any  person  be  eligible  to  that 
office  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  age  of  thirty-five  years,  and  been 
fourteen  years  a  resident  within  the  United  States. 

In  case  of  the  repaoval  of  the  president  from  office,  or  of  his  death, 
resignation,  or  inability  to  discharge  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  said 
office,  the  same  shall  devolve  on  the  vice-president,  and  the  congress  may, 
by  law,  provide  for  the  case  of  removal,  death,  resignation,  or  inability, 
both  of  the  president  and  vice-president,  declaring  what  officer  shall  then 
act  as  president,'  and  such  officer  shall  act  accordingly,  until  the  disabil- 
ity be  removed,  or  a  president  shall  be  elected. 

The  president  shall,  at  stated  times,  receive  for  his  services  a  com- 
pensation, which  shall  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished  during  the 
period  for  which  he  shall  have  been  elected ;  and  he  shall  not  receive, 
within  that  period,  any  other  emolument  from  the  United  States,  or  any 
of  them. 

Before  he  enter  on  the  execution  of  his  office,  he  shall  take  the  follow- 
ing oath  or  affirmation : 

"  I  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  faithfully  execute  the 
office  of  President  of  the  United  States ;  and  will,  to  the  best  of  my 
ability,  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States." 

Sec.  2.  The  president  shall  be  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  militia  of  the  several  states,  when 
called  into  the  actual  service  of  the  United  States ;  he  may  require  the 
opinion,  in  writing,  of  the  principal  officer  in  each  of  the  executive  depart- 
ments, upon  any  subject  relating  to  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices ; 
and  he  shall  have  power  to  grant  reprieves  and  pardons  for  offenses 
against  the  United  States,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment. 

He  shall  have  power  by,  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  sen- 
ate, to  make  treaties,  provided  two-thirds  of  the  senators  present  concur : 
and  he  shall  nominate,  and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
senate,  shall  appoint  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers  and  consuls, 
judges  of  the  supreme  court,  and  all  other  officers  of  the  United  States, 
whose  appointments  are  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  and  which 
shall  be  established  by  law :  but  the  congress  may,  by  law,  vest  the 
appointment  of  such  inferior  officers  as  they  think  proper,  in  the  presi- 
dent alone,  in  the  courts  of  law,  or  in  the  heads  of  departments. 

The  president  shall  have  power  to  fill  up  all  vacancies  that  may  hap- 
pen during  the  recess  of  the  senate,  by  granting  commissions  which  shall 
expire  at  the  end  of  their  next  session. 


972  THE   AMERICAN   STATESMAN. 

Sec.  3.  He  shall  from  time  to  time  give  to  the  congress  information 
of  the  state  of  the  union ;  and  recommend  to  their  consideration  such 
measures  as  he  shall  judge  necessary  and  expedient.  He  may,  on 
extraordinary  occasions,  convene  both  houses,  or  either  of  them ;  and,  in 
case  of  disagreement  between  them,  with  respect  to  the  time  of  adjourn- 
ment, he  may  adjourn  them  to  such  time  as  he  shall  think  proper.  He 
shall  receive  ambassadors  and  other  public  ministers.  He  shall  take 
care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed ;  and  shall  commission  all  the 
officers  of  the  United  States. 

Sec.  4.  The  president,  vice-president,  and  all  civil  officers  of  the 
United  States,  shall  be  removed  from  office  on  impeachment  for,  and 
conviction  of,  treason,  bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors. 


AKTICLE  III. 

Section  L  The  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  be  vested 
in  one  supreme  court,  and  in  such  inferior  courts  as  the  congress  may, 
from  time  to  time,  ordain  and  establish.  The  judges  both  of  the  supreme 
and  inf^ior  courts,  shall  hold  their  offices  during  good  behavior ;  and 
shall,  at  stated  times,  receive  for  their  services  a  compensation,  which 
shall  not  be  diminished  during  their  continuance  in  office. 

Sec.  2.  The  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  in  law  and  equity, 
arising  under  this  constitution,  the  laws  of  the  United  States  and  treaties 
made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  their  authority ;  to  all  cases  affect- 
ing ambassadors,  other  public  ministers,  and  consuls ;  to  all  cases  of 
admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdiction;  to  controversies  to  which  the 
United  States^shall  be  a  party,  to  controversies  between  two  or  more 
states ;  between  a  state  and  citizens  of  another  state ;  between  citizens 
of  different  states ;  between  citizens  of  the  same  state  claiming  lands 
under  grants  of  different  states ;  and  between  a  state,  or  the  citizens 
thereof;  and  foreign  states,  citizens  or  subjects. 

In  all  cases  affecting  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers  and  consuls 
and  those  in  which  a  state  shall  be  a  party,  the  supreme  court  shall  have 
original  jurisdiction.    In  all  the  other  cases  before  mentioned,  the  supreme 
court  shall  have  appellate  jurisdiction,  both  as  to  law  and  fact,  with 
such  exceptions,  and  under  such  regulations,  as  the  congress  shall  make. 

The  trial  of  all  crimes,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment,  shall  be  by 
jury ;  and  such  trial  shall  be  held  in  the  state  where  the  said  crimes 
shall  have  been  committed ;  but  when  not  committed  within  any  state, 
the  trial  shall  be  at  such  place  or  places  as  the  congress  may  by  law 
have  directed. 

Sec.  3.  Treason  against  the  United  States  shall  consist  only  in  levy- 
ing war  against  them,  or  in  adhering  to  their  enemies,  giving  them  aid 
and  comfort.  No  person  shall  be  convicted  of  treason,  unless  on  the 
testimony  of  two  witnesses  to  the  same  overt  act,  or  on  confession  in  open 
court. 

The  congress  shall  have  power  to  declare  the  punishment  of  treason ; 
but  no  attainder  of  treason  shall  work  corruption  of  blood,  or  forfeiture, 
except  during  the  life  of  the  person  attainted. 


APPENDIX.  973 

ARTICLE  IV. 

Section  1.  Full  faith  and  credit  shall  be  given,  in  each  statej  to  the 
public  acts,  records,  and  judicial  proceedings  of  every  other  state.  And 
the  congress  may,  by  general  laws,  prescribe  the  manner  in  which  such 
acts,  records  and  proceedings  shall  be  proved,  and  the  effect  thereof. 

Sec.  2.  The  citizens  of  each  state  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privi- 
leges and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  states. 

A  person  charged  in  any  state  with  treason,  felony,  or  other  crime, 
who  shall  flee  from  justice,  and  be  found  in  another  state,  shall,  on  demand 
of  the  executive  authority  of  the  state  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered 
up,  to  be  removed  to  the  state  having  jurisdiction  of  the  crime. 

No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  state,  under  the  laws  thereof, 
escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation 
therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor ;  but  shall  be  delivered 
up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due. 

Sec.  3.  New  states  may  be  admitted  by  the  congress  into  this  union  ; 
but  no  new  state  shall  be  formed  or  erected  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any 
other  state,  nor  any  state  be  formed  by  the  junction  of  two  or  more 
states,  or  parts  of  states,  without  the  consent  of  the  legislatures  of  the 
states  concerned,  as  well  as  of  the  congress. 

The  congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful 
rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belong- 
ing to  the  United  States  ;  and  nothing  in  this  constitution  shall  be  so 
construed  as  to  prejudice  any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any 
particular  state. 

Sec.  4.  The  United  States  shall  guaranty  to  every  state  in  this  union, 
a  republican  form  of  government;  and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against 
invasion,  and  on  application  of  the  legislature,  or  of  the  executive  (when 
the  legislature  cannot  be  convened)  against  domestic  violence. 

ARTICLE  V. 

The  congress,  whenever  two-thirds  of  both  houses  shall  deem  it  neces- 
sary, shall  propose  amendments  to  this  constitution,  or  on  the  applica- 
tion of  the  legislatures  of  two-thirds  of  the  several  states,  shall  call  a 
convention  for  proposing  amendments ;  which,  in  either  case,  shall  be 
valid  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  part  of  this  constitution,  when  rati- 
fied by  the  legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the  several  states,  or  by  con- 
ventions in  three-fourths  thereof,  as  the  one  or  the  other  mode  of  ratifi- 
cation may  be  proposed  by  the  congress  :  Provided,  that  no  amendment 
which  may  be  made  prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
eight,  shall  in  any  manner  affect  the  first  and  fourth  clauses  in  the  ninth 
section  of  the  first  article ;  and  that  no  state,  without  its  consent,  shall 
be  deprived  of  its  equal  suffrage  in  the  senate. 

ARTICLE  VL 

All  debts  contracted,  and  engagements  entered  into,  before  the  adop 
tion  of  this  constitution,  shall  be  as  valid  against  the  United  States  unde? 
this  constitution,  as  under  the  confederation. 


974  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

This  constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  which  shall  be 
made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treaties  made  or  which  shall  be  made 
under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land,  and  the  judges  in  every  state  shall  be  bound  thereby,  any  thing 
in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  state  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

The  senators  and  representatives  before  mentioned,  and  the  members 
of  the  several  state  legislatures,  and  all  executive  and  judicial  officers, 
both  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  several  states,  shall  be  bound,  by 
oath  or  affirmation,  to  support  this  constitution ;  but  no  religious  test 
shall  ever  be  recpired  as  a  qualification  to  any  office  or  public  trust  under 
the  United  States. 

ARTICLE  VII. 

The  ratification  of  the  conventions  of  nine  states  shall  be  sufficient 
for  the  establishment  of  this  constitution  between  the  states  so  ratifying 
the  same. 

Done  in  convention,  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  states  present,  the 
seventeenth  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
seven  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  and  of  the  Independence  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  the  twelfth.  In  witness  whereof  we  have 
hereunto  subscribed  our  names. 

GEOEGE  WASHINCTON, 
President,  and  Deputy  from  Virginia. 

New  Hampshire. — John  Langdon,  Nicholas  Gilman. 

Massachusetts. — Nathaniel  Gorham,  Rufus  King. 

Connecticut. — Wm.  Samuel  Johnson,  Roger  Sherman. 

New  York. — Alexander  Hamilton. 

New  Jersey. — William  Livingston,  David  Brearley,  "William  Paterson, 
Jonathan  Dayton. 

Pennsylvania. — Benjamin  Franklin,  Robert  Morris,  Thomas  Fitz- 
simmons,  James  Wilson,  Thomas  Mifflin,  George  Clymer,  Jared  Inger- 
soll,  Gouverneur  Morris. 

Delaware. — George  Read,  Gunning  Bedford,  Jr.,  John  Dickinson, 
Richard  Bassett,  Jacob  Broom. 

Maryland. — James  M 'Henry,  Daniel  of  St.  Thomas  Jenifer,  Daniel 
Carroll.  ' 

Virginia. — John  Blair,  James  Madison,  Jr. 

North  Carolina. — William  Blount,  Richard  Dobbs  Spaight,  Hugh 
Williamson. 

South  Carolina. — John  Rutledge,  Charles  Pinckney,  Pierce  Butler, 
Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney. 

Georgia. — William  Few,  Abraham  Baldwin. 

Attest:  William  Jackson,  Secretary. 


ArrENDix.  975 


AMENDMENTS. 


Article  I.  Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  esttiblishment 
of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof;  or  abridging  the 
freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press  ;  or  the  right  of  the  people  peaceably  to 
assemble,  and  to  petition  the  government  for  a  redress  of  grievances. 

Art.  II.  A  well  regulated  militia  being  necessary  to  the  security  of 
a  free  state,  the  right  of  the  people  to  keep  and  bear  arms  shall  not  be 
infringed. 

Art.  III.  No  soldier  shall,  in  time  of  peace,  be  quartered  in  any 
house  without  the  consent  of  the  owner,  nor  in  a  time  of  war,  but  in  a  man- 
ner to  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Art.  IV.  The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons, 
houses,  papers  and  effects,  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures, 
shall  not  be  violated ;  and  no  warrant  shall  issue,  but  upon  probable 
cause,  supported  by  oath  or  affirmation,  and  particularly  describing  the 
place  to  be  searched,  and  the  persons  or  things  to  be  seized. 

Art.  y.  No  person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a  capital  or  otherwise 
infamous  crime,  unless  on  a  presentment  or  indictpient  of  a  grand  jury, 
except  in  cases  arising  in  the  land  or  naval  forces,  ar  in  the  militia  when 
in  actual  service,  in  time  of  war  or  public  danger ;  nor  shall  any  person 
be  subject,  for  the  same  offense,  to  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or 
limb,  nor  shall  be  compelled,  in  any  criminal  case,  to  be  a  witness  against 
himself;  nor  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty  or  property,  without  due  pro- 
cess of  law ;  nor  shall  private  property  be  taken  for  public  use,  without 
just  compensation. 

Art.  VI.  In  all  criminal  prosecutions,  the  accused  shall  enjoy  the 
right  to  a  speedy  and  public  trial,  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  state  and 
district  wherein  the  crime  shall  have  beencommitted,  which  district  shall 
have  been  previously  ascertained  by  law,  and  to  be  informed  of  the  nature 
and  cause  of  the  accusation  ;  to  be  confronted  with  the  witnesses  against 
him ;  to  have  compulsory  process  for  obtaining  witnesses  in  his  favor, 
and  to  have  the  assistance  of  counsel  for  his  defense. 

Art.  VII.  In  suits  at  common  law,  where  the  value  in  controversy 
shall  exceed  twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  preserved , 
and  no  fact  tried  by  a  jury,  shall  be  otherwise  reexamined  in  any  court 
of  the  United  States,  than  according  to  the  rules  of  the  common  law. 

Art.  VIII.  Excessive  bail  shall  not  be  required,  nor  excessive  fines 
imposed,  nor  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  inflicted. 

Art,  IX.  The  enumeration  in  the  constitution,  of  certain  rights,  shall 
not  be  construed  to  deny  or  disparage  others  retained  by  the  people. 

Art.  X.  The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States,  by  the  con- 
stitution, nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  states,  are  reserved  to  the  states 
respectively,  or  to  the  people. 

Art.  XI.  The  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  not  be  con- 
strued to  extend  to  any  suit  in  law  or  equity,  commenced  or  prosecuted 
against  one  of  the  United  States  by  citizens  of  another  state,  or  by 
citizens  or  subjects  of  any  foreign  state. 

Art.  XII.  The  electors  shall  meet  in  their  respective  states,  and  vote 


976  THE   AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

by  ballot  for  president  and  vice-president,  one  of  whom,  at  least,  shall 
not  be  an  inhabitant  of  the  same  state  with  themselves ;  they  shall  name 
in  their  ballots  the  person  voted  for  as  president,  and  in  distinct  ballots 
the  person  voted  for  as  vice-president,  and  they  shall  make  distinct  lists 
of  all  persons  voted  for  as  president,  and  of  all  persons  voted  for  as 
vice-president,  and  of  the  number  of  votes  for  each,  which  lists  they  shall 
sign  and  certiify,  and  transmit  sealed  to  the  seat  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States,  directed  to  the  president  of  the  senate ; — the  president 
of  the  senate  shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  senate  and  house  of  represen- 
tatives, open  all  the  certificates,  and  the  votes  shall  then  be  counted ; — 
the  person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  for  president,  shall  be 
the  president,  if  such  number  be  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of 
electors  appointed;  and  if  no  person  have  such  majority,  then,  from  the 
persons  having  the  highest  numbers,  not  exceeding  three,  on  the  list  of 
those  voted  for  as  president,  the  house  of  representation  shall  choose 
immediately,  by  ballot,  the  president.  But  in  choosing  the  president, 
the  votes  shall  be  taken  by  states,  the  representatives  from  each  state 
having  one  vote ;  a  quorum  for  this  purpose  shall  consist  of  a  member 
or  members  from  two-thirds  of  the  states,  and  a  majority  of  all  the 
states  shall  be  necessary  to  a  choice.  And  if  the  house  of  representa- 
tives shall  not  choose  a  president  whenever  the  right  of  choice  shall 
devolve  upon  them,  before  the  fourth  day  of  March  next  following,  then 
the  vice-president  shall  act  as  president,  as  in  the  case  of  the  death  or  other 
constitutional  disability  of  the  president.  The  person  having  the  greatest 
number  of  votes  as  vice-president,  shall  be  the  vice-president,  if  such 
number  be  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  electors  appointed,  and 
if  no  person  have  a  majority,  then,  from  the  two  highest  numbers  on  the 
list,  the  senate  shall  choose  the  vice-president ;  a  quorum  for  the  pur- 
pose shall  consist  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  senators,  and  a 
majority  of  the  whole  number  shall  be  necessary  to  a  choice.  But  no 
person  constitutionally  ineligible  to  the  office  of  president  shall  be  eligi- 
gible  to  that  of  vice-president  of  the  United  States. 


APPENDIX. 


977 


NOTES. 


Note  A. — Page  92. 

The  following  is  a  statement  of  the  number  and  amount  of  the  issues 
of  continental  money  during  the  revolutionary  war,  designating  each 
issue,  and  its  amount,  as  the  same  appears  in  the  journals  of  the  conti- 
nental congress. 


WHEN  AUTHORIZED.  AMOUNT. 

1775,  June  22 82,000,000 

July   26 1,000,000 

Nov.    29 3,000,000 

1776,  Feb.    27 4,000,000 

May  9  and  27 6,000,000 

July  22,  and  Aug.  13.  5,000,000 

Nov.  2  and  Dec.  28..  5,000,000 

1777,  Feb.    26 5,000,000 

May    20 5,000,000 

Aug.   15 1,000,000 

Nov.     7 1,000,000 

Dec.      3 1,000,000 

1778,  Jan.      8 1,000,000 

Jan.     22 2,000,000 

Feb.    16 2,000,000 

March  5 2,000,000 

April    4 1,000,000 

11 5,000,000 

18 5,000,000 

1778,  May    22 5,000,000 

June   20 5.000,000 


WHEN  AUTHORIZED.  AMOUNT. 

1778,  July    30 $5,000,000 

Sept.     5 5,000,000 

26 10,000,000 

Nor.     4 10,000,000 

Dec.    14 10.000,000 

1779,  Feb.      3 6;000,160 

19 5,000,160 

April     1 5,000,160 

May     5 10,000,000 

Jan.  14,  and  May  7 . . .  50,000,400 

June     4 10,000,100 

July   17 5,000,100 

do 10,000,100 

Sept.  17 5,000,180 

do 10,000,180 

Oct.     14 5,000,180 

Nov.    17 5,000,040 

do 5,060,600 

Nov.   29 10,000,140 


$246,062,400 


Note  B. — Page  146. 

To  readers  unacquainted  with  the  rules  of  proceeding  in  legislative 
assemblies,  it  may  be  of  service  to  explain  the  difference  between  the 
forms  of  deliberation  and  action  in  committees  of  the  whole  and  those 
observed  in  the  house.  While  sitting  as  a  committee  of  the  whole,  the 
body  is  not  called  the  house,  or  the  senate.  The  members,  on  motion, 
resolve  themselves,  by  vote,  into  a  committee  of  the  whole;  and  the  pre- 
siding officer  calls  to  the  chair  another  member,  who  is  not  addressed  as 
speaker  or  president,  but  as  chairman.  Important  measures  are  usually 
referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  to  be  considered  and  amended 
before  they  are  disposed  of  bj  the  house.  The  one  object  of  instituting 
such  committee  is  to  afford  greater  freedom  of  discussion,  as  members, 
in  committee  speak  as  often  as  they  please,  provided  they  can  obtain  the 
floor.  When  a  bill  has  been  duly  considered  and  amended,  the  speaker 
resumes  the  chair,  and  the  chairman  of  the  committee  of  the  whole 
reports  the  bill  to  the  house,  or  to  the  senate,  as  the  case  may  be. 

62 


978  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Note  G.—Pas-e  202. 


"'is'- 


"  Essex  Junto"  was  the  name  given  to  certain  ultra  federalists,  op- 
posed to  John  Adams,  and  entertaining,  as  was  alleged,  strong  par- 
tialities for  England.  Among  them  were  the  members  of  the  cabinet 
who  were  dissatisfied  with  his  mildness  towards  France.  Some  of  the 
leading  ones  resided  in  Essex  county,  Massachusetts  :     Hence  the  name. 

Note  I>.—Page  420. 

During  the  excitement  caused  by  the  passage  of  the  tariif  act  of  1828, 
which  was  so  vehemently  denounced  at  the  south,  as  both  unconstitu- 
tional and  impolitic,  Mr.  Madison  addressed  to  Joseph  C.  Cabell,  Esq., 
in  September  and  October  of  that  year,  two  letters  in  vindication  of  the 
protective  system;  one  on  its  constitutionality,  and  the  other  on  its 
expediency.     Extracts  from  these  letters  are  here  given  : 

"  The  constitution  vests  in  congress,  expressly,  '  the  power  to  lay  and 
collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises;'  and  'the  power  to  regulate 
trade.' 

"  That  the  former  power,  if  not  particularly  expressed,  would  have 
been  included  in  the  latter  as  one  of  the  objects  of  a  general  power  to 
regulate  trade,  is  not  necessarily  impugned  by  its  being  so  expressed. 
Examples  of  this  sort  can  not  sometimes  be  easily  avoided,  and  are  to  be 
seen  elsewhere  in  the  constitution.  Thus  the  power  '  to  define  and  pun- 
ish offenses  against  the  law  of  nations,'  includes  the  power,  afterwards 
particularly  expressed,  '  to  make  rules  concerning  captures,'  &c.,  from 
offending  neutrals.  So  also  a  power  '  to  coin  money'  would  doubtless 
include  that  of  '  regulating  its  value,'  had  not  the  latter  power  been 
expressly  inserted.  The  term  taxes,  if  standing  alone,  would  certainly 
have  included  duties,  imposts  and  excises.  In  another  clause  it  is  said, 
'no  tax  or  duties  shall  be  laid  on  exports,'  &c.  Here,  the  two  terms  are 
used  as  synonymous.  And  in  another  clause,  where  it  is  said  '  no  state 
shall  lay  any  imposts  or  duties,'  &c.,  the  terms  imposts  and  duties  are 
synonymous. 

"  It  is  a  simple  question  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
whether  '  the  power  to  regulate  trade  with  foreign  nations'  as  a  distinct 
and  substantive  item  in  the  enumerated  powers,  embraces  the  object  of 
encouraging  by  duties,  restrictions,  and  prohibitions,  the  manufactures 
and  products  of  the  country  ?  And  the  affirmative  must  be  inferred 
from  the  following  considerations  : 

"  1.  The  meaning  of  the  phrase  '  to  regulate  trade,'  must  be  sought  in 
the  general  use  of  it ;  in  other  words,  in  the  objects  to  which  the  power 
was  generally  understood  to  be  applicable,  when  the  phrase  was  mserted 
in  the  constitution. 

"  2.  The  power  has  been  understood  and  used  by  all  commercial  and 
manufacturing  nations,  as  embracing  the  object  of  encouraging  manufac- 
tures.    It  is  Relieved  that  not  a  single  exception  can  be  named. 

"  3.  This  had  been  particularly  the  case  with  Great  Britain,  whose 
commercial  vocabulary  is  the  parent  of  ours.  A  primary  object  of  her 
commercial  regulations  is  Avell  known  to  have  been  the  protection  and 
encouragement  of  her  manufactures. 

"  4.  Such  was  understood  to  be  a  proper  use  of  the  power  by  the  states 


APPENDIX.  979 

most  prepared  foi"  manufacturing  industry,  whilst  retaining  the  power 
over  their  foreign  trade. 

"  5.  Such  a  use  of  the  power,  by  congress,  accords  with  the  intention 
and  expectation  of  the  states,  in  transferring  the  power  over  trade  from 
themselves  to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  .  This  was  emphati- 
cally the  case  in  the  eastern,  the  more  manufacturing  members  of  the 
confederacy.    Hear  the  language  held  in  the  convention  of  Massachusetts. 

"  6.  If  congress  have  not  the  power,  it  is  annihilated  for  the  nation  • 
a  policy  without  example  in  any  other  nation. 

"  7.  If  revenue  be  the  sole  object  of  a  legitimate  impost,  and  the 
encouragement  of  domestic  articles  be  not  within  the  power  of  regulating 
trade,  it  would  follow  that  no  monopolizing  or  unequal  regulations  of 
foreign  nations  could  be  counteracted  ;  that  neither  the  staple  articles  of 
subsistence,  nor  the  essential  implements  for  the  public  safety,  could, 
under  any  circumstances,  be  insured  or  fostered  at  home,  by  regulations 
of  commerce,  the  usual  and  most  convenient  mode  of  providing  for  both, 
and  that  the  American  navigation,  though  the  source  of  naval  defense, 
of  a  cheapening  competition  in  carrying  our  valuable  and  bulky  articles 
to  market,  and  of  an  independent  carriage  of  them  during  foreign  wars, 
when  a  foreign  navigation  might  be  withdrawn,  must  be  at  once  aban- 
doned, or  speedily  destroyed ;  it  being  evident  that  a  tonnage  duty  in 
foreign  ports  against  our  vessels,  and  an  exemption  from  such  a  duty  in 
our  ports,  in  favor  of  foreign  vessels,  must  have  the  inevitable  efiect  of 
banishing  ours  from  the  ocean. 

"  To  assume  a  power  to  protect  our  navigation,  and  the  cultivation 
and  fabrication  of  all  articles  requisite  for  the  public  safety,  as  incident 
to  the  war  power,  would  be  a  more  latitudinary  constructiou  of  the  text  of 
the  constitution,  than  to  consider  it  as  embraced  by  the  specified  power  to 
regulate  trade  ;  a  power  which  has  been  exercised  by  all  nations  for 
those  purposes,  and  which  effects  those  purposes  with  less  of  interference 
with  the  authority  and  conveniency  of  the  states,  than  might  result  fronc 
internal  and  direct  modes  of  encouraging  the  articles,  any  of  which  modes 
would  be  authorized,  as  far  as  deemed  '  necessary  and  proper,'  by  con- 
sidering the  power  as  an  incidental  power. 

"  8.  That  the  encouragement  of  manufactures  was  an  object  of  the 
power  to  regulate  trade,  as  proved  by  the  use  made  of  the  power  for  that 
object,  in  the  first  session  of  the  first  congress  under  the  constitution ; 
when  among  the  members  present  were  so  many  who  had  been  members 
of  the  federal  convention  which  framed  the  constitution,  and  of  the  state 
conventions  which  ratified  it ;  each  of  these  classes  consisting  of  mem- 
bers who  had  opposed  and  who  had  espoused  the  constitution  in  its  actual 
form.  It  does  not  appear  from  the  printed  proceedings  of  congress  on 
that  occasion,  that  the  power  was  denied  by  any  of  them,  and  it  may  be 
remarked,  that  members  from  Virginia,  in  particular,  as  well  of  the 
anti-federal  as  the  federal  party,  the  names  then  distinguishing  those 
who  had  opposed  and  those  who  had  approved  the  constitution,  did  not 
hesitate  to  propose  duties,  and  suggest  prohibitions  in  favor  of  several 
articles  of  her  production.  By  one  a  duty  was  proposed  on  mineral 
coal  in  favor  of  Virginia  coal-pits ;  by  another,  a  duty  on  hemp  was  pro- 
posed, to  encourage  the  growth  of  that  article  5  and  by  a  third,  a  prohi- 
bition of  even  foreign  beef  was  suggested,  as  a  measure  of  sound  policy. 


980  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

"  A  further  evidence  in  support  of  tlie  constitutional  power  to  protect 
and  foster  manufactures  by  regulations  of  trade,  an  evidence  that  ought, 
of  itself,  to  settle  the  question,  is  the  uniform  and  practical  sanction 
given  to  the  power,  by  the  general  government,  for  nearly  forty  years ; 
with  a  concurrence  or  acquiescence  of  every  state  government,  throughout 
the  same  period  ;  and,  it  may  be  added,  through  all  the  vicissitudes  of 
party  which  marked  the  period.  No  novel  construction,  however  inge- 
niously devised,  or  however  respectable  and  patriotic  its  patrons,  can 
withstand  the  weight  of  such  authority,  or  the  unbroken  current  of  so 
proloDged  and  universal  a  practice." 

Having  thus  endeavored  to  establish  the  constitutionality  of  the 
power  of  congress  to  protect  and  encourage  manufactures,  he  discusses, 
in  the  second  letter,  the  expediency  of  exercising  the  power  for  this  pur- 
pose.    The  following  are  extracts  from  this  letter : 

"  1.  The  theory  of  'Let  us  alone'  supposes  that  all  nations  concur  in 
a  perfect  freedom  of  commercial  intercourse.  Were  this  the  case,  they 
would,  in  a  commercial  view,  be  but  one  nation,  as  much  as  the  several 
districts  composing  a  particular  nation ;  and  the  theory  would  be  as 
applicable  to  the  former  as  to  the  latter.  But  this  golden  age  of  free 
trade  has  not  yet  arrived  :  nor  is  there  a  single  nation  that  has  set  the 
example.  No  nation  can,  indeed,  safely  do  so,  until  a  reciprocity,  at 
least,  be  insured  to  it.  Take,  for  a  proof,  the  familiar  case  of  the  navi- 
gation employed  in  foreign  commerce.  If  a  nation,  adhering  to  the  rule 
of  never  interposing  a  countervailing  protection  of  its  vessels,  admits 
foreign  vessels  into  its  ports  free  of  duty,  whilst  its  own  vessels  are  sub- 
ject to  a  duty  in  foreign  ports,  the  ruinous  effect  is  so  obvious,  that  the 
warmest  advocate  for  the  theory  in  question  must  shrink  from  a  univer- 
sal application  of  it. 

"  A  nation  leaving  its  foreign  trade,  in  all  cases,  to  regulate  itself, 
might  soon  find  it  regulated,  by  other  nations,  into  a  subserviency  to  a 
foreign  interest.  In  the  interval  between  the  peace  of  1783  and  the 
establishment  of  the  present  constitution  of  the  IJnited  States,  the  want 
of  a  general  authority  to  regulate  trade  is  known  to  have  had  this  con- 
sequence.        *         *         * 

"  2.  The  theory  supposes,  moreover,  a  perpetual  peace  ;  a  supposition, 
it  is  to  be  feared,  not  less  chimerical  than  a  universal  freedom  of  com- 
merce. *  *  *  In  order  to  determine  a  question  of  economy, 
between  depending  on  foreign  supplies,  and  encouraging  domestic  substi- 
tutes, it  is  necessary  to  compare  the  probable  periods  of  war  with  the 
probable  periods  of  peace ;  and  the  cost  of  the  domestic  encouragement 
in  times  of  peace,  with  the  cost  added  to  foreign  articles  in  times  of  war. 
*  *  *  *  It  cannot  be  said  that  the  manufactories  which  could 
not  support  themselves  against  foreign  competition  in  periods  of  peace, 
would  spring  up  of  themselves  at  the  recurrence  of  war  prices.  It 
must  be  obvious  to  every  one,  that,  apart  from  the  difficulty  of  great  and 
sudden  changes  in  employment,  no  prudent  capitalists  would  engage  in 
expensive  establishments  of  any  sort,  at  the  commencement  of  a  war  of 
uncertain  duration  with  a  certainty  of  having  them  crushed  by  the 
return  of  peace.     *     *     * 

"  3.  It  is  an  opinion  in  which  all  must  agree,  that  no  nation  ought  to  be 
unnecessarily  dependent  on  others  for  the  munitions  of  public  defense. 


APPENDIX.  98 1 

or  for  the  materials  essential  to  a  naval  force,  where  the  nation  has  a 
maritime  frontier  or  a  foreign  commerce  to  protect.  To  this  class  of 
exceptions  to  the  theory,  may  be  added  the  instruments  of  agriculture, 
and  of  the  mechanic  arts  which  supply  the  other  primary  wants  of  the 
community.     ♦     *     * 

"  4.  Tnere  are  cases  where  a  nation  may  be  so  far  advanced  in  the 
prerequisites  for  a  particular  branch  of  manufactures,  that  this,  if  once 
brought  into  existence,  would  support  itself;  and  yet,  unless  aided  in  its 
nascent  and  infant  state,  by  public  encouragement  and  a  confidence  in 
public  protection,  might  remain,  if  not  altogether,  for  a  long  time  unat- 
tempted,  or  attempted  without  success.  Is  not  our  cotton  manufacture 
a  fair  example  ?  However  favored  by  an  advantageous  command  of  the 
raw  material,  and  a  machinery  which  dispenses  in  so  extraordinary  a 
proportion  with  manual  labor,  it  is  quite  probable,  that  without  the 
impulse  given  by  a  war,  cutting  off  foreign  supplies,  and  the  patronage 
of  an  early  tariff,  it  might  not  even  yet  have  established  itself;  and 
pretty  certain,  that  it  would  be  far  short  of  the  prosperous  condition 
which  enables  it  to  face,  in  foreign  markets,  the  fabrics  of  a  nation  that 
defies  all  other  competitors.  The  number  must  be  small,  that  would  now 
pronounce  this  manufacturing  boon  not  to  have  been  cheaply  purchased 
by  the  tariff  which  nursed  it  into  its  present  maturity. 

"5.  Should  it  happen,  as  has  been  suspected,  to  be  an  object,  though 
not  of  a  foreign  government  itself,  of  its  great  manufacturing  capitalists, 
to  strangle  in  the  cradle  the  infant  manufactures  of  an  extensive  cus- 
tomer, or  an  anticipated  rival,  it  would  surely,  in  such  a  cause,  be  incum- 
bent on  the  suffering  party,  so  far  to  make  an  exception  of  the  '  Let 
alone'  policy,  as  to  parry  the  evil  by  apposite  regulations  of  its  foreign 
commerce." 

Note  "Ei.—Page  493. 

The  exposition,  by  Mr.  Madison,  of  his  Virginia  resolutions,  does  not 
authorize  the  construction  given  to  them  by  Mr.  Hayne  and  others. 
And  in  letters  written  at  the  time  of,  or  soon  after  the  debate  in  which 
his  authority  was  claimed  in  support  of  nullification,  he  unequivocally 
disclaimed  the  doctrine.  [See  Niles'  Register  of  May  30,  and  Oct.  16, 
1830.] 

Note  ¥.—Page  499. 

In  the  convention  of  the  framers  of  the  constitution,  there  was  much 
opposition  to  the  change  of  the  government  from  the  confederation  df 
independent  and  sovereign  states,  to  a  national  government,  or  govern- 
ment of  the  people;  and  the  same  opposition  was  made  in  some  of  the 
state  conventions  to  which  it  was  submitted  for  adoption.  The  concur- 
rence of  its  opponents  and  advocates  in  considering  it  a  government  of 
the  people  of  the  states,  and  not  a  mere  league  or  union  of  states,  would 
seem  to  afford  ample  confirmation  of  the  exposition  of  Mr.  Livingston 
and  Mr.  Webster.  In  the  convention  of  Virginia,  Patrick  Henry,  who 
was  opposed  to  this  feature  of  the  constitution,  said  : 

"  The  members  of  the  federal  convention  were,  I  am  sure,  impressed 
with  the  necessity  of  forming  a  great  consolidated  government,  instead 
of  a  confederation ; — that  this  is  a  consolidated  government  is  demon- 


982  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN.  ^ 

strably  clear;  and  the  danger,  to  my  mind,  is  very  striking.  I  have 
the  highest  veneration  for  those  gentlemen  5  but,  sir,  give  me  leave  to 
demand,  what  right' they  had  to  ^dij ,  ^  we  the  people  ?J  My  political 
curiosity,  exclusive  of  my  anxious  solicitude  for  the  public  welfare,  lead? 
me  to  ask,  who  authorized  them  to  speak  the  language  of  '  we  the  peo, 
pie"*  instesid  of  ^  we  the  states  ?''  States  are  the  characteristic  and  soul 
of  a  confederation.  If  the  states  be  not  the  agents  of  this  compact,  it 
must  be  one  great  consolidated  national  government  of  the  people  of  all 
the  states." 

To  this,  it  was  replied,  first  by  Mr.  Edmund  Pendleton,  the  president 
of  the  convention,  thus  : 

"  But  an  objection  is  made  to  the  form  :  the  expression,  we  the  people ^ 
is  thought  improper.  Permit  me  to  ask  the  gentleman,  who  made  this 
objection,  who  but  the  people  can  delegate  power  ?  who  but  the  people 
have  a  right  to  form  a  government  ?  The  expression  is  a  common  one 
and  a  favorite  one  with  me  ; — the  representatives  of  the  people,  by  their 
authority,  is  a  mode  wholly  unessential.  If  the  objection  be,  that  the 
union  ought  to  be  not  of  the  people,  but  of  the  state  governments,  then 
I  think  the  choice  of  the  former  very  happy  and  proper.  What  have 
the  state  governments  to  do  with  it  ?  Were  they  to  determine,  the 
people  could  not,  in  that  case,  be  the  judge  upon  what  terms  it  was 
adopted." 

On  the  same  head,  Mr.  Lee,  of  Westmoreland,  thus  spoke : 

"  He  (Mr.  Henry)  had  adverted  to  the  state  of  the  government,  and 
asked  what  authority  they  had  to  use  the  expression,  'we  the  people,'' 
and  not  we  the  states  ?  This  expression  was  introduced  into  that  paper 
with  great  propriety ;  this  system  is  submitted  to  the  people  for  their 
consideration,  because  on  them  it  is  to  operate,  if  adopted.  It  is  not 
binding  on  the  people,  until  it  becomes  their  act.  It  is  now  submitted 
to  the  people  of  Virginia.  If  we  do  not  adopt  it,  it  will  be  always  null 
and  void  as  to  us.  Suppose  it  was  found  proper  for  an  adoption,  in 
becoming  the  government  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  by  what  style  should 
it  be  done  ?  Ought  we  not  to  make  use  of  the  name  of  the  people  ? 
No  other  style  would  be  proper." 

Mr.  Madison,  another  member  of  the  convention,  who  was  also  one 
of  the  delegates  that  framed  the  constitution,  thus  expressed  himself,  as 
to  the  mixed  nature  of  the  federal  government : 

"  The  principal  question  is,  whether  it  be  a  federal  or  consolidated 
government.  In  order  to  judge  properly  of  the  question  before  us,  we 
must  consider  it  minutely  in  its  principal  parts.  I  conceive  myself  that 
it  is  of  a  mixed  nature — it  is  in  a  manner  unprecedented ;  we  can  not 
find  one  express  example  in  the  experience  of  the  world ;  it  stands  by 
itself.  In  some  respects  it  is  a  government  of  a  federal  nature :  in 
others  it  is  of  a  consolidated  nature.  Even  if  we  attend  to  the  manner 
in  which  the  constitution  is  investigated,  ratified,  and  made  the  act  of 
the  people  of  America,  I  can  say,  notwithstanding  what  the  honorable 
gentleman  has  alleged,  that  this  government  is  not  completely  consoli- 
dated— nor  is  it  entirely  federal.  Who  are  parties  to  it  ?  The  people 
— but  not  the  people  as  composing  thirteen  sovereignties ;  were  it,  as 
the  gentleman  asserts,  a  cousolidated  government,  the  assent  of  a 
majority  of  the  people  would  be  sufficient  for  its  establishment ;  and  as 


APPENDIX.  983 

a  majority  have  adopted  it  already,  the  remaining  states  would  be  bound 
by  the  act  of  the  majority,  even  if  they  unanimously  reprobated  it. 
Was  it  such  a  government  as  is  suggested,  it  would  be  now  binding  on 
the  people  of  this  state  without  their  having  had  the  privilege  of  deliberat- 
ing on  it ;  but,  sir,  no  state  is  bound  by  it,  as  it  is,  without  its  own 
consent.  Should  all  the  states  adopt  it,  it  will  be  then  a  government 
established  by  the  thirteen  states  of  America,  not  through  the  interven- 
tion of  the  legislatures,  but  by  the  people  at  large.  In  this  particular 
respect,  the  distinction  between  the  existing  and  the  proposed  govern- 
ment is  very  material.  The  existing  system  has  been  derived  from  the 
dependent  derivative  authority  of  the  legislature  of  the  states ;  whereas 
this  is  derived  from  the  superior  power  of  the  people.  If  we  look  at 
the  manner  in  which  alterations  are  to  be  made  in  it,  the  same  idea  is 
in  some  degree  attended  to.  By  the  new  system,  a  majority  of  the 
states  can  not  introduce  amendments ;  nor  are  all  the  states  required 
for  that  purpose;  three-fourths  of  th^m  must  concur  in  alterations  ;  in 
this,  there  is  a  departure  from  the  federal  idea  :  the  members  to  the 
national  house  of  representatives  are  to  be  chosen  by  the  people  at  largo, 
in  proportion  to  the  numbers  in  the  respective  districts.  When  we  come 
to  the  senate,  its  members  are  elected  by  the  states  in  their  equal  and 
political  capacity ;  but  had  the  government  been  completely  consolidated, 
the  senate  would  have  been  chosen  by  the  people  in  their  individual 
capacity,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  members  of  the  other  house.  Thus 
it  is  of  a  complicated  nature,  and  this  complication,  I  trust,  will  be 
found  to  exclude  the  evils  of  absolute  consolidation,  as  well  as  of  a 
mere  confederacy." 

Mr.  Nicholas,  on  the  same  side,  remarked : 

'^  In  my  opinion,  the  expression  '  we  the  people,'  is  highly  proper — it 
is  submitted  to  the  people,  because  on  them  it  is  to  operate.  Till 
adopted,  it  is  a  dead  letter  and  not  binding  upon  any  one  ;  when  adopted 
it  becomes  binding  upon  the  people  who  adopt  it.  It  is  proper  on 
another  account.  We  are  under  great  obligations  to  the  federal  con- 
vention for  recurring  to  the  people,  the  source  of  all  power.  The  gen- 
tleman's argument  militates  against  himself;  he  says  that  persons  in 
power  never  relinquish  power  willingly.  If,  then,  the  state  legislatures 
would  not  relinquish  part  of  the  powers  they  now  possess,  to  enable  a 
general  government  to  support  the  union,  reference  to  the  people  is 
necessary." 

Note  Q.—Page  568. 

In  regard  to  the  force  of  judicial  decisions  in  controlling  the  action 
of  other  branches  of  the  government,  president  Jackson  says  : 

"  Each  public  ofl&cer  who  takes  an  oath  to  support  the  constitution, 
swears  that  he  will  support  it  as  he  understands  it,  and  not  as  it  is 
understood  by  others.  It  is  as  much  the  duty  of  the  house  of  represen- 
tatives, of  the  senate,  and  of  the  president,  to  decide  upon  the  constitu- 
tionality of  any  bill  or  resolution  which  may  be  presented  to  them  for 
passage  or  approval,  as  it  is  of  the  supreme  judges  when  it  may  be  brought 
before  them  for  judicial  decision.  The  opinion  of  the  judges  has  no 
more  authority  over  congress  than  the  opinion  of  congress  has  over  the 
judges,  and  on  that  point  the  president  is  independent  of  both.     The 


984  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

authority  of  the  supreme  court  must  not,  therefore,  be  permitted  to  con- 
trol the  congress  or  the  executive,  when  acting  in  their  legislative 
capacities,  but  to  have  only  such  influence  as  the  force  of  their  reasoning 
may  deserve." 

The  frilowing  are  the  views  of  Mr  Maclison,  conamunicateol  in  a  letter 
to  Charles  J.  Ingersoll,  June  25,  1831  : 

"  The  case  in  question  has  its  true  analogy  in  the  obligation  arising 
from  judicial  expositions  of  the  law  on  succeeding  judges;  the  consti- 
tution being  a  law  of  the  legislator,  as  the  law  is  a  rule  of  decision  to 
the  judge. 

"  And  why  are  judicial  precedents,  when  formed  on  due  discussion 
and  consideration,  and  deliberately  sanctioned  by  reviews  and  repeti- 
tions, regarded  as  of  binding  influence^  or  rather  of  authoritative  force^ 
in  settling  the  meaning  of  a  law  ?  It  must  be  answered,  1st,  because  it 
is  a  reasonable  and  established  axiom,  that  the  good  of  society  requires 
that  the  rules  of  conduct  of  its  members  should  be  certain  and  known, 
which  would  not  be  the  case  if  any  judge,  disregarding  the  decisions  of 
his  predecessors,  should  vary  the  rule  of  law  according  to  his  individual 
interpretation  of  it.  Misera  est  servitus  rebi  jus  est  aut  vagum  aret 
incognitum.  2d,  because  an  exposition  of  the  law  publicly  made  and 
repeatedly  confirmed  by  the  constituted  authority,  carries  with  it,  by  fair 
inference,  the  sanction  of  those  who,  having  made  the  law  through  the 
legislative  organ,  appear  under  such  circumstances,  to  have  determined 
its  meaning  through  their  judiciary  organ. 

"  Can  it  be  of  less  consequence  that  the  meaning  of  the  constitution 
should  be  fixed  and  known,  than  that  the  meaning  of  a  law  should  be 
so  ?  Can  indeed  a  law  be  fixed  in  its  meaning  and  its  operation,  unless 
the  constitution  be  so  ?  On  the  contrary,  if  a  particular  legislature, 
diflfering  in  the  construction  of  the  constitution  from  a  series  of  preced- 
ing constructions,  proceeding  to  act  on  that  difference,  they  not  only 
introduce  uncertainty  and  instability  in  the  constitution,  but  in  the  laws 
themselves  ;  inasmuch  as  all  laws,  preceding  the  new  construction,  and 
inconsistent  with  it,  are  not  annulled  for  the  future,  but  virtually  pro- 
nounced nullities  from  the  beginning. 

'•  Bat  it  is  said  that  the  legislator  having  sworn  to  support  the  consti- 
tution, must  support  it  in  his  own  construction  of  it,  however  different 
from  that  put  on  it  by  his  predecessors,  or  whatever  be  the  consequence 
of  the  construction.  And  is  not  the  judge  under  the  same  oath  to  sup- 
port the  law  ?  yet  has  it  ever  been  supposed  that  he  was  required,  or 
at  liberty  to  disregard  all  precedents,  however  solemnly  repeated  and 
regularly  observed ;  and,  by  giving  effect  to  his  own  abstract  and  indivi- 
dual opinions,  to  disturb  the  established  course  of  practice  in  the  busi- 
ness of  the  community  ?  Has  the  wisest  and  most  conscientious  judge 
ever  scrupled  to  acquiesce  in  decisions  in  which  he  has  been  overruled 
by  the  matured  opinions  of  the  majority  of  his  colleagues ;  and  subse- 
quently to  conform  himself  thereto,  as  to  authoritative  expositions  of 
the  law  ?  And  is  it  not  reasonable  that  the  same  view  of  the  ofl5cial 
oath  should  be  taken  by  a  legislator,  acting  under  the  constitution,  which 
is  his  guide,  as  is  taken  by  a  judge,  acting  under  the  law,  which  is  his  ? 

"  There  is  in  fact  and  in  common  understanding,  a  necessity  of  regard- 
ing a  course  of  practice,  as  above   characterised,  in  the  light  of  a  legal 


APPENDIX.  985 

rule  of  interpreting  a  law  ;  and  there  is  a  like  necessity  of  considering 
it  a  constitutional  rule  of  interpreting  a  constitution. 

"  That  there  may  be  extraordinary  and  peculiar  circumstances  con- 
trolling the  rule  in  both  cases,  may  be  admitted ;  but,  with  such  excep- 
tions, the  rule  will  fjrce  itselr  on  the  practical  judgment  of  the  most 
ardent  theorist.  He  will  find  it  impossible  to  adhere  to,  and  act  official- 
ly upon,  his  solitary  opinions  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  law  or  constitu- 
tion, in  opposition  to  a  construction,  reduced  to  practice,  during  a  rea- 
sonable period  of  time ;  more  especially  where  no  prospect  existed  of  a 
change  of  construction  by  the  public  as  its  agents.  And  if  a  reasonable 
period  of  time,  marked  with  the  usual  sanctions,  would  not  bar  the  indi- 
vidual prerogative,  there  could  be  no  limitation  to  its  exercise,  although 
the  danger  of  error  must  increase  with  the  increasing  oblivion  of  ex- 
planatory circumstances,  and  with  the  continual  changes  in  the  import 
of  words  and  phrases. 

*'  Let  it  then  be  left  to  the  decision  of  every  intelligent  and  candid 
judge,  which,  on  the  whole,  is  most  to  be  relied  on  for  the  true  and  safe 
construction  of  a  constitution,  that  which  has  the  uniform  sanction  of 
successive  legislative  bodies  through  a  period  of  years,  and  under  the 
varied  ascendency  of  parties ;  or  that  which  depends  upon  the  opinions 
of  every  new  legislature,  heated  as  it  may  be  by  the  spirit  of  party, 
eager  in  the  pursuit  of  some  favorite  object,  or  led  astray  by  the  elo- 
quence and  address  of  popular  statesmen,  themselves,  perhaps,  under  the 
influence  of  the  same  misleading  causes. 

"  It  was  in  conformity  with  the  view  here  taken  on  the  respect  due  to 
deliberate  and  reiterated  precedents,  that  the  bank  of  the  United  States, 
though  on  the  original  question  held  to  be  unconstitutional,  received  the 
executive  signature  in  the  year  1817.  The  act  of  originally  establishing 
a  bank,  had  undergone  ample  discussions  in  its  passage  through  the 
several  branches  of  government.  It  had  been  carried  into  execution 
throughout  a  period  of  twenty  years  with  annual  legislative  recogni- 
tions ;  in  one  instance,  indeed,  with  a  positive  ramification  of  it  into  a 
new  state  ;  and  with  the  entire  acquiescence  of  all  the  local  authorities 
as  well  as  of  the  nation  at  large ;  to  all  of  which  may  be  added,  a  de- 
creasing prospect  of  any  change  in  the  public  opinion  adverse  to  the 
constitutionality  of  such  an  institution.  A  veto  from  the  executive 
Wilder  these  circumstance^^  with  an  admission  of  the  expediency  and 
almost  necessity  of  the  measure,  would  have  been  a  defiance  of  all  the 
obligations  derived  from  a  course  of  precedents  'amounting  to  the 
requisite  evidence  of  the  national  judgment  and  intention. 

"  It  has  been  contended  that  the  authority  of  precedents  was  in  that 
case  invalidated  by  the  consideration  that  they  proved  only  a  respect 
for  the  stipulated  duration  of  the  bank,  with  a  toleration  of  it  until  the 
law  should  expire,  and  by  the  casting  vote  given  in  the  senate  by  the 
vice-president  in  the  year  1811,  against  a  bill  for  establishing  a  national 
bank,  the  vote  being  expressly  given  on  the  ground  of  unconstitu- 
tionality. But  if  the  law  itself  was  unconstitutional,  the  stipulation 
wag  void,  and  could  not  be  constitutionally  fulfilled  or  tolerated.  And 
as  to  the  negative  of  the  senate  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  presiding 
officer,  it  is  a  fact  well  understood  at  the  time,  that  it  resulted  not  from 
an  equality  of  opinions  in  that  assembly  on  the  power  of  congress  to 


986  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

establish  a  bank,  but  from  a  junction  of  those  who  admitted  the  power, 
but  disapproved  the  plan,  with  those  who  denied  the  power.  On  a  sim- 
ple question  of  constitutionality,  there  was  a  decided  majority  in  favor 
of  it." 

Note  H.— Page  611. 

The  case  referred  to  is  that  of  Samuel  Gwinn,  a  clerk  in  the  post 
office  at  Washington,  who  had  been  appointed  by  president  Jackson^  in 
1831,  during  the  recess  of  the  senate,  to  the  office  of  register  in  a  land 
office  in  Mississippi.  On  the  meeting  of  congress  in  December,  Mr. 
Gwinn  was  nominated  to  the  senate  for  the  office  to  which  he  had  been 
appointed.  In  consequence  of  a  standing  rule  of  the  senate,  not  to 
appoint  a  person  of  one  state  to  an  office  in  another,  the  nomination  was 
negatived;  ayes,  13;  noes,  25.  At  the  .same  session,  June  12,  1832, 
the  name  of  Gwinn  was  again  communicated  to  the  senate ;  and  the 
message  was  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table.  On  the  10th  of  July,  it  was 
taken  up,  and  the  nomination  was  again  laid  on  the  table,  27  to  17. 

On  the  16th  of  July,  during  the  last  night's  sitting,  when  many 
senators  had  left  the  city,  a  small  majority  only  remaining,  another 
attempt  was  made  to  get  the  nomination  acted  on,  but  it  was  resolved, 
that  the  president  be  informed  that  the  senate  would  take  no  proceed- 
ings on  the  nomination,  which  was  again  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table. 
Mr.  Ellis,  senator  from  Mississippi,  called  up  the  nomination,  saying 
the  president  had  declared  that  he  would  make  no  other  nomination. 
But  the  senate  resolved,  that  the  president  be  informed,  that  no  proceed- 
ings would  be  taken  on  the  nomination,  which  was  again  laid  on  the 
table.  This  attempt  of  the  president  to  induce  the  senate  to  recede  from 
their  determination  was  regarded  as  arbitrary. 

It  became  a  question,  whether  the  vacancy  occurring  by  the  presi- 
dent's refusal  to  nominate  another  person,  could  be  constitutionally 
filled  by  a  new  appointment  by  the  president.  The  constitution  provides 
that  the  commissions  of  persons  appointed  to  fill  vacancies  happening 
during  the  recess  of  the  senate,  shall  not  hold  beyond  the  next  session. 
But  if  the  president  could  make  a  new  appointment  after  tlie  adjourn- 
ment, there  was  nothing  to  prevent  his  keeping  a  person  in  office  at 
pleasure,  without  the  consent  of  the  senate.  The  question  was  referred 
to  the  attorney-general,  Mr.  Taney,  who  gave  it  as  his  opinion,  that  the 
president  had  power  to  reappoint  after  the  adjournment  of  the  'senate. 

Note  I.— Page  622. 

The  "  right  of  instruction,"  as  it  is  called,  has  afforded  to  politicians 
a  fruitful  topic  of  discussion.  It  is  a  question  upon  which  opposite 
opinions  have  been  entertained  by  eminent  statesmen.  The  doctrine  is 
this  :  The  representative  is  bound  in  all  cases  to  act  in  accordance  "with 
the  wishes  of  his  constituents,  whatever  may  be  his  own  ideas  of  the 
effects  of  a  particular  measure  upon  which  he  may  be  called  to  act ;  or 
to  resign  his  office,  in  order  to  allow  them  to  substitute  one  who  will 
conform  to  their  views. 

It  is  urged  in  favor  of  this  doctrine,  that  it  is  in  conformity  with  the 


APPENDIX  987 

republican  principle,  whicb  requires  the  representative  to  dc  y^hat  a 
majority  of  the  people  would  do  if  they  were  to  act  in  person;  and 
hence,  to  do  otherwise  is  virtually  to  substitute  the  will  of  one,  or  6f  a 
minority,  for  that  of  the  majority.  This,  certainly,  is  a  plausible  argu- 
ment, and  one  which,  upon  a  bare  statement  of  it,  would  almost  seem  to 
be  incontrovertible ;  as  no  true  republican  would  contend  for  a  govern- 
ment by  a  minority. 

The  following  arguments  against  the  doctrine  in  question,  are  entitled 
to  consideration : 

If  the  right  of  instruction  exists  at  all,  it  must  be  unlimited  ;  and 
must  ^pply  not  only  to  representatives  in  congress,  but  to  representa- 
tives in  state  legislatures,  who  might  be  found  to  disagree  with  their 
constituents  in  the  several  districts  they  represent.  And  it  must  extend 
also  to  governors,  judges,  and  other  officers.  The  consequences  of  car- 
rying out  the  principle  to  its  full  extent,  would  unsettle  the  government, 
multiply  our  elections  indefinitely,  and  keep  the  public  mind  in  a  state 
of  perpetual  agitation.  But  as  such  an  extension  of  the  principle  woul4 
not,  it  is  presumed,  find  many  advocates,  we  will  suppose  it  to  be  con- 
fined to  representative  officers,  and  particularly  to  senators  and  repre- 
sentatives in  congress,  whose  cases  have,  for  the  most  part,  given  rise  to 
the  discussion. 

A  representative  may,  and  in  most  cases  probably  does,  possess  means 
of  information  which  are  not  accessible  to  the  great  body  of  his  consti- 
tuents, in  relation  to  the  particular  measure  upon  which  he  difi^ers  with 
them.  It  may  appear  to  him  not  only  decidedly  detrimental  to  the 
general  welfare,  but  unconstitutional.  Having  sworn  to  support  the 
constitution,  he  could  not  conscientiously  vote  for  the  measure.  And 
if  he  believes  it  to  be  unconstitutional,  ought  he  to  give  place  to  another 
who  will  aid  in  violating  the  constitution  ?  Would  he  be  inexcusable 
for  thus  consenting  to  the  infraction  of  that  instrument  of  which  he  has, 
for  a  specific  period  of  time,  been  made  one  of  its  constitutional  guard- 
ians ? 

So  in  regard  to  the  expediency  of  a  measure.  He  may,  from  careful 
and  laborious  investigation,  and  from  infallible  data,  have  come  to  a 
firm  conviction  that  the  adoption  of  a  particular  measure  would  be 
highly  detrimental  to  the  puplic  interest ;  ought  he  surrender  his  post  to 
one  who  he  has  the  strongest  reason  to  believe  would  aid  in  inflicting 
the  injury  upon  the  community  ? 

Again  :  how  is  the  representative  to  know  the  will  of  his  constituents  ? 
They  may  never  have  expressed  their  opinions  on  the  particular  mea- 
sure upon  which  the  legislative  instruction  is  given  ;  and  therefore  the 
legislature  itself  has  not  the  means  of  knowing  what  would  be  the  ex- 
pression of  the  people  upon  this  question  if  submitted  to  them  separate 
and  distinct  from  all  others.  In  electing  the  state  legislatures,  other 
questions  have  their  influence  in  determining  the  votes  of  the  mass  of 
the  electors ;  and  it  may  be  that  the  legislature,  in  their  instructions, 
actually  misrepresent  the  wishes  of  the  majority  of  their  constituents. 
There  have  been  instances  in  which  senators  have  been  instructed  upon 
questions  which  did  not  enter  at  all  into  the  election  of  representatives 
in  the  state  legislature.  The  legislature  of  a  state,  having  been  chosen 
principally  for  purposes  of  state  legislation,  can  not  be  presumed  to 


988  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

express  the  will  of  the  people  on  a  question  foreign  to  such  purposes ; 
but  the  instructions,  if  the  right  exists  at  all,  must  come  in  a  more  direct 
manner,  which  shall  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  wishes  of  the  majority. 
The  constitution  has  made  no  provision  for  displacing  a  representative 
fov  a  n.ere  misrr presentation  cf  a  majority  of  hiy  conititu'jnts.  Under 
the  old  confederation,  the  delegates,  though  chosen  for  a  year  only, 
might  at  any  time  be  recalled  by  the  state  legislatures,  and  their  places 
filled  by  new  appointments  ;  but  the  constitution,  while  it  has  doubled 
the  term  of  office  of  a  representative,  and  has  given  to  senators  a  term 
of  six  years,  has  made  no  provision  for  their  recall  or  displacement  for 
any  political  opinion  whatever. 

Nor  is  the  silence  of  the  constitution  on  this  subject  the  result  of 
inadvertence.  The  framers,  on  the  contrary,  seem  to  have  contemplated 
the  contingency  which  the  advocates  of  the  right  of  instruction  regard 
as  an  evil,  and  which  they  would  adopt  extra  constitutional  means  to 
prevent.  This  is  inferred  from  the  reasons  which  governed  the  conven- 
tion in  fixing  the  official  terms  of  the  different  officers  of  the  government. 
While,  on  the  one  hand,  they  intended  to  make  the  term  so  short  as 
to  insure  a  due  degree  of  responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  representa- 
tive ;  they  deemed  it  important,  on  the  other,  to  make  it  so  long  as 
effectually  to  guard  against  the  evils  of  changeable  legislation.  This 
was  deemed  so  essential,  that  propositions  were  made  for  a  senate  for 
life,  or  during  good  behavior,  and  for  terms  of  from  three  to  nine  years. 
But  as  a  mean  between  the  longest  and  the  shortest  terms  proposed,  the 
term  of  six  years  was  adopted.  And  what  were  the  arguments  of  the 
framers  in  favor  of  so  long  a  term  for  one  of  the  branches  of  the  legis- 
lature ? 

In  reference  to  the  evils  of  an  unstable  policy,  which  is  the  natural 
result  of  a  too  frequent  charge  of  those  intrusted  with  the  powers  of 
legislation ;  and  in  view  of  those  sudden  popular  excitements  which 
demagogues  well  know  how  to  produce ;  Mr.  Madison^  in  defending  a 
durable  senate,  says,  in  the  63d  number  of  the  Federalist :  "  As  the 
cool  and  deliberate  sense  of  the  community  ought,  in  all  governments, 
and  actually  will,  in  all  free  governments,  ultimately  prevail  over  the 
views  of  its  rulers ;  so  there  are  particular  moments  in  public  affairs, 
when  the  people,  stimulated  by  some  irregular  passion,  or  some  illicit 
advantage,  or  misled  by  the  artful  misrepresentations  of  interested  men, 
may  call  for  measures  which  they  themselves  will  afterward  be  the  most 
ready  to  lament  and  condemn.  In  these  critical  moments,  how  salutary 
will  be  the  interference  of  some  temperate  and  respectable  body  of 
citizens,  in  order  to  check  the  misguided  career,  and  to  suspend  the  blow 
meditated  by  the  people  against  themselves,  until  reason,  justice,  and 
truth,  can  regain  their  authority  over  the  public  mind  !  What  bitter 
anguish  would  not  the  people  of  Athens  have  often  escaped,  if  their 
government  had  contained  so  provident  a  safeguard  against  the  tyranny 
of  their  own  passions  !  Popular  liberty  might  then  have  escaped  the 
indelible  reproach  of  decreeing  to  the  same  citizens  the  hemlock  on  one 
day,  and  statues  on  the  next." 

In  the  above  extract  are  noticed  more  particularly  the  liability  to 
fluctuating  legislation,  in  consequence  of  sudden  popular  convulsions, 
and  the  necessity  of  a  senate  like  that  provided  by  the  constitution  to 


APPENDIX.  989 

prevent  the  evil.  In  the  preceding  number,  speaking  more  particularly 
of  the  "  mutability  of  the  public  councils,  arising  from  a  rapid  succes- 
sion of  new  members,"  he  says :  "  From  this  change  of  men  must  pro- 
ceed a  change  of  opinions  ;  and  from  a  change  of  opinions,  a  change  of 
measures.  But  a  continual  change  even  of  good  measures  is  inconsistent 
with  every  rule  of  prudence.      *       *        *      It  will  be  of  little  avail  to 

the  people,  that  the. laws  are  made  by  men  of  their  own  choice if 

they  are  repealed  or  revised  before  they  are  promulgated,  or  undergo 
such  incessant  changes,  that  no  man  who  knows  what  the  law  is  to-day, 
can  guess  what  it  will  be  to-morrow.  *  *  *  What  prudent  mer- 
chant will  hazard  his  fortunes  in  any  new  branch  of  commerce,  when  he 
knows  not  but  that  his  plans  may  be  rendered  unlawful  before  they  can 
be  executed  ?  What  farmer  or  manufacturer  will  lay  himself  out  for 
the  encouragement  of  any  particular  cultivation  or  establishment,  when 
he  can  have  no  assurance  that  his  preparatory  labors  and  advances  will 
not  render  him  a  victim  to  an  inconstant  government  ?" 

In  answering  the  objection,  that  the  appointment  of  senators  by  the 
state  legislatures,  instead  of  a  direct  election  by  the  people,  and  for  so 
long  a  term  as  six  years,  would  render  that  body  too  independent  of  the 
people,  and  induce  its  members  to  abuse  their  power,  Mr.  Madison 
says  :  "  Liberty  may  be  endangered  by  the  abuses  of  liberty,  as  well  as 
by  the  abuses  of  power;"  and  then  proceeds  to  give  examples  proving 
the  safety  of  a  permanent  senate  where  it  is  counteracted  by  a  popular 
branch  elected  for  a  short  term.  The  practical  effect  of  the  doctrine  in 
question  would  be  to  destroy  the  stability  of  the  senate ;  to  subject  the 
country  to  the  evils  of  a  fluctuating  policy,  and  thus  defeat  the  very 
object  of  the  constitution  itself. 

But  it  is  affirmed  that  the  contrary  doctrine,  instead  of  being  anti- 
republican,  because  opposed  to  the  will  of  the  people,  is  really  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  popular  will,  as  expressed  in  the  only  way  in  which 
it  can  be  constitutionally  done,  through  the  constitution  itself.  The 
constitution,  presuming  a  senatorial  term  of  six  years  to  be  preferable, 
on  the  whole,  to  a  shorter  one,  fixed  it  at  that  period,  without  any  pro- 
vision against  the  contingency  of  a  senator's  opinions  coming  into  con- 
flict with  those  of  the  people  of  the  state  he  is  chosen  to  represent ;  and 
the  act  of  the  people  in  adopting  the  constitution  with  this  provision,  is 
to  be  taken  as  the  true  expression  of  their  will,  so  long  as  that  instru- 
ment shall  remain  unaltered.  In  adopting  this  provision,  they  have 
deliberately  chosen  to  run  the  hazard  of  a  temporary  misrepresentation, 
in  order  to  guard  against  the  far  greater  evil  of  unstable  legislation.  To 
the  constitution,  therefore,  we  are  to  look  for  the  legitimate  expression 
of  the  will  of  the  people.  Even  if  their  wishes  could  be  infallibly  as- 
certained in  cases  as  they  arise,  the  instructions,  it  is  held,  would  not 
bind  the  representative  to  yield  either  his  place  or  his  opinions. 

Note  J.— Page  690. 

Allusion  was  here  made  to  a  mob  in  the  city  of  New  York  in  Febru- 
ary, 1837,  instigated  by  a  meeting  held  in  pursuance  of  a  notice  pub- 
lished in  some  of  the  papers,  and  placarded  through  the  city.  It  was 
at  a  time  of  high  prices  of  provisions,  fuel,  rent,    &c.       The  notice 


990  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

declared,  that  "  high  prices  must  come  down  !  The  voice  of  the  people 
shall  be  heard  and  will  prevail  !"  The  object  of  the  meeting,  which 
was  announced  to  be  held  in  the  Park,  "  rain  or  shine,"  was  "  to  inquire 
into  the  cause  of  the  present  unexampled  distress,  and  to  devise  a  suit- 
able remedy." 

About  5,000  persons  assembled  at  the  time  and  place  appointed,  and 
were  addressed  by  several  persons  in  an  inflammatory  style  ;  after  which 
a  large  body  of  the  meeting  proceeded  to  some  flour  stores,  and  destroyed 
wheat  and  flour,  with  other  property,  to  the  amount  of  about  $10,000. 

Note  K.—Page  702. 

It  is  not  the  strangest  fact  in  our  political  history,  that  the  constitutional 
opinions  of  the  leading  statesmen  of  South  Carolina,  underwent,  in  the 
course  of  a  few  years,  an  entire  change  from  the  widest  latitudinarianism 
to  the  most  rigid  strict  construction.  Nor  is  it  the  only  instance  of  a 
total  revolution  of  opinion  in  the  history  of  our  public  men.  It  may, 
notwithstanding,  be  gratifying  to  the  reader  to  notice  the  contrast  be- 
tween the  former  views  of  the  nullifiers  of  that  state,  and  their  state 
rights  doctrines  at  a  subsequent  period. 

From  a  reply  to  a  certain  series  of  "radical  "  essays  published  in  the 
state  of  Georgia,  in  1821,  is  the  following  extract,  ascribed  to  the  pen 
of  Mr.  M'Dufiie,  of  South  Carolina  : 

"  What  security,  then,  did  the  convention,  or,  in  other  words,  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  provide  to  restrain  their  functionaries  from 
usurping  powers  not  delegated,  and  from  abusing  those  with  which  they 
are  really  invested  ?  *  *  *  The  constitution  will  tell  you  that  it  is  the 
real  security  they  have  provided.  It  is  the  responsibility  of  the  officers 
of  the  general  government,  not  to  the  state  authorities,  but  to  them- 
selves, the  people.  This,  and  this  only,  is  the  great  conservative  prin- 
ciple, which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  our  political  institutions,  and 
sustains  the  great  and  glorious  fabric  of  our  liberty.  This  great  truth 
ought  to  be  kept  in  constant  and  lively  remembrance  by  every  American. 

"  The  states,  as  political  bodies,  have  no  original,  inherent  rights. 
That  they  have  such  rights  is  a  false,  dangerous,  and  anti-republican 
assumption,  which  lurks  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  reasonings  in  favor  of 
state  rights. 

"  As  far  as  I  can  collect  any  distinct  propositions  from  the  medly  of 
unconnected  quotations  you  have  made  on  these  very  important  sub- 
jects, I  understand  you  to  affirm,  that  in  expounding  the  federal  consti- 
tution, we  should  be  "  tied  down  to  the  strict  letter ''''  of  that  instrument; 
and  that  the  general  government  '  was  not  made  the  exclusive  or  final 
judge  of  the  extent  of  the  powers  to  be  delegated  to  itself;  but  that,  as 
in  all  other  cases  of  compact  among  parties  having  no  common  judge, 
each  party  had  a  right  to  judge  for  itself; — these  may  be  considered 
the  concentrated  essence  of  all  the  wild  and  destructive  principles  that 
have  ever  been  advanced  in  relation  to  the  subjects  under  consideration  ! 

"  I  should  suppose,  therefore,  that  no  professional  man  could  hesitate 
in  saying,  that  a  forcible  opposition  to  the  judgment  of  the  federal 
court,  founded  upon  an  act  of  congress,  by  whatever  state  authority 
that  opposition  might  be  authorized,  would  be  the  very  case  which  the 


APPENDIX.  99 1 

convention  had  in  view,  wlien  they  made  provision  for  calling  forth  the 
militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  union." 

Mr.  M'Duffie,  in  his  essays,  claims  the  authority  of  Mr.  Calhoun, 
saying :  "  He  (Mr.  C.)  was  from  the  first  a  decided  advocate  of  the 
navy,  the  bank,  internal  improvements,  internal  taxes  when  necessary, 
and  liberal  principles  in  construing  the  constitution  for  great,  useful, 
and  safe  national  purposes." 

In  a  speech  on  the  direct  tax,  in  1816,  Mr.  Calhoun  said:  *'  Let  us 
make  great  permanent  roads,  not  like  the  Romans,  with  the  view  of 
subjecting  and  ruling  provinces,  but  for  the  more  honorable  purposes  of 
defense ;  and  connecting  more  closely  the  interests  of  various  sections 
of  this  great  country.  Let  any  one  look  at  the  vast  cost  of  transporta- 
tion during  the  war,  much  of  which  is  chargeable  to  the  want  of  good 
roads  and  canals,  and  he  will  not  deny  the  vast  importance  of  a  due 
attention  to  this  object. 

"  Mr.  C.  proceeded  to  another  topic — the  encouragement  proper  to  ^e 
afforded  to  the  industry  of  the  country.  In  regard  to  the  question  how 
far  manufactures  ought  to  be  fostered,  Mr.  C.  said  it  was  the  duty  of 
this  country,  as  a  means  of  defense,  to  encourage  the  domestic  industry 
of  the  country,  more  especially  that  part  of  it  which  provides  the  neces- 
sary materials  for  clothing  and  defense.  Let  us  look  at  the  nature  of 
the  war  most  likely  to  occur.  England  is  in  possession  of  the  ocean ; 
no  man,  however  sanguine,  can  believe  that  we  can  deprive  her  soon  of 
her  predominance  there.  That  control  deprives  us  of  the  means  of 
maintaining  our  army  and  navy  cheaply  clad.  The  question  relating  to 
manufactures  must  not  depend  upon  the  abstract  principle  that  industry, 
left  to  pursue  its  own  course,  will  find  in  its  own  interest  all  the  en- 
couragement that  is  necessary.  I  lay  the  claims  of  the  manufacturers 
entirely  out  of  view,  said  Mr.  C. ;  but  on  general  principles,  without 
regard  to  their  interest,  a  certain  encouragement  should  be  extended,  at 
least  to  our  woolen  and  cotton  manufacturers." 


Note  Ij.—Page  707. 

Mr.  Adams  having  stated,  in  the  course  of  a  debate  in  congress,  that 
the  Florida  treaty  had  been  approved  by  G-en.  Jackson,  and  the  state- 
ment having  been  questioned  by  the  Globe,  he  repeated  the  declaration, 
and  exculpated  himself     His  remarks  are  reported  thus : 

"  Mr.  Adams  repeated,  in  substance,  that  he  was  himself  opposed  to 
the  relinquishment  of  Texas,  and  that  no  other  man  in  the  cabinet  of 
Mr.  Monroe  sustained  him.  He  negotiated  the  treaty  with  Don  Onis, 
under  the  immediate  direction  of  the  president,  (Mr.  Monroe,)  and  never 
exchanged  any  communications  with  that  minister  which  Mr.  Monroe 
did  not  see.  He  (Mr.  A.)  was  the  last  man  in  the  administration  who 
assented  to  the  treaty.  The  treaty  was  concluded  on  the  22d  of  July, 
1819.  At  that  time  Gen.  Jackson  was  in  the  city,  attending  the  pro- 
ceedings of  congress  on  the  Seminole  question.  After  the  treaty  had 
been  agreed  to,  and  before  it  was  signed,  Mr.  Monroe  requested  him 
(Mr.  A.)  to  submit  it  to  Gen.  Jackson,  and  obtain  his  opinion  upon  it. 
It  was  accordingly  submitted  to  him,  not  as  a  military  commander,  but 
as  a  distinguished  citizen.     He  called  upon  Gen.  Jackson  at  the  hotel 


992  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

then  kept  by  Strother,  now  Fuller's,  and  handed  him  the  treaty,  direct- 
ing his  attention  particularly  to  the  boundary.  General  Jackson  kept 
it  a  day  or  two,  and  then  returned  it  with  his  approbation." 

Note  M. — Page  747. 

Among  the  defaulters,  of  whom  there  were,  it  is  believed,  not  less 
than  about  forty,  to  amount  in  the  aggregate,  of  nearly  two  millions  of 
dollars.  The  defalcation  of  Samuel  Swartwout,  collector  of  the  port  of 
New  York,  alone,  was  about  one  million  and  a  quarter. 

Note  l^.—Page  799. 

The  following,  having  been  inadvertently  omitted  in  its  regular  place 
in  the  body  of  the  work,  is  here  inserted  as  a  supplement  to  Chapter 
LXIV  : 

At  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  act  of  June  25,  1842,  for  the  appor- 
tionment of  representatives  according  to  the  census  of  1840,  representa- 
tives were  not  in  all  the  states  chosen  in  single  districts.  The  second 
section  of  the  act  above  mentioned,  required  every  state  entitled  to  more 
than  one  representative,  "  to  elect  representatives  by  districts  composed 
of  contiguous  territory,  equal  in  number  to  the  number  of  its  representa- 
tives, no  one  district  to  elect  more  than  one  representative."  In  many 
of  the  states,  there  were  some  districts  in  each  of  which  two  or  more 
were  elected ;  and  in  some  others,  they  were  elected  by  general  ticket. 
Such  were  the  states  of  New  Hampshire,  Georgia,  Mississippi,  and 
Missouri.  These  states,  electing  twenty  representatives,  refused  to 
comply  with  this  provision  of  the  above  mentioned  law ;  and  when,  on 
the  assembling  of  the  next  congress,  (December,  1843,)  these  representa- 
tives appeared  to  take  their  seats,  their  right  to  them  was  disputed  on 
the  ground  that  their  election  was  illegal.  Before  proceeding  to  the 
election  of  a  speaker,  Mr.  Barnard,  of  New  York,  arose  to  read  a  paper; 
but  the  reading  was  objected  to ;  and  leave  to  read  the  same  was  re- 
fused, 124  to  69.  The  paper  was  a  protest,  signed  by  fifty- three  mem- 
bers of  the  house,  declaring  the  election  of  the  persons  appearing  as 
representatives  from  these  states  to  have  been  unconstitutional  and 
illegal,  and   protesting  against  their  participating  in  the  election   of 


The  speaker  was  elected  viva  voce.  John  W.  Jones,  of  Virginia,  was 
chosen,  by  128  votes  against  59  for  John  White,  of  Kentucky,  and  1  for 
William  Wilkins. 

The  subject  of  the  election  of  the  representatives  from  the  states  non- 
complying  with  the  act  of  1842,  was  referred  to  the  committee  on  elec- 
tions;  and  on  the  22d  of  January,  1844,  Mr.  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  in 
behalf  of  the  committee,  made  a  report,  concluding  with  two  resolutions, 
declaring  the  act  of  congress  of  1842,  "  not  a  law  made  in  pursuance  of 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,"  and  that  all  the  members  from 
the  above  named  states  were  constitutionally  and  lawfully  elected. 

The  authority  for  adopting  that  section  of  the  apportionment  law 
which  nullified  the  state  laws  under  which  the  elections  had  been  held, 
the  committee  said,  was  supposed  by  its  advocates  to  be  derived  from 
the  4th  section  of  the  1st  article  of  the  constitution,  which  says  :  "  The 


APPENDIX.  993 

times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  senators  and  representa- 
tives, shall  be  prescribed  in  each  state  by  the  legislature  thereof;  but 
the  congress  may,  at  any  time,  by  law,  make  or  alter  such  regulations, 
except  as  to  the  places  of  choosing  senators."  The  committee  argued, 
that  the  first  part  of  this  clause  commanded  the  state  legislatures  to 
act ;  the  other  permitted  congress  to  act.  An  imperative  duty  rested 
upon  the  former  ;  while  to  the  latter  only  a  privilege  was  granted.  From 
this  the  committee  appear  to  have  drawn  the  inference,  that  the  power 
here  granted  to  congress  was  intended  only  as  a  conservative  power,  to 
be  exercised  in  case  a  state  legislature  should  fail  or  refuse  to  act,  or 
should  act  in  such  a  manner  as  to  subvert  the  rights  of  the  people  and 
the  principles  of  the  constitution. 

To  support  this  construction,  the  report  referred  to  the  debates  of  the 
convention  to  form  the  constitution.  When  Gen.  Pinckney  proposed  that 
representatives  "  should  be  elected  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  of 
each  state  should  direct,"  he  urged  "  that  this  liberty  would  give  more 
satisfaction,  as  the  legislature  could  then  accommodate  the  mode  to  the 
convenience  and  opinions  of  the  peopled  And  the  latter  part  of  the 
clause  was  agreed  to  with  an  explanation,  that  "  this  was  meant  to  give 
to  the  national  legislature  a  power,  not  only  to  alter  the  provisions  of 
the  states,  but  to  make  regulations  in  case  the  states  should  fail  or  re- 
fuse altogether.''''  And  Gen.  Hamilton,  in  the  Federalist,  defended  this 
provision  upon  the  same  principle  :  "  Its  propriety  rests  upon  the  evi- 
dence of  this  plain  proposition,  that  every  government  ought  to  contain 
within  itself  the  means  of  its  own  preservation." 

Mr.  Davis,  of  Kentucky,  from  the  minority  of  the  committee,  made 
a  counter  report.  This  report  noticed  a  doctrine  which  had  been  lately 
assumed,  that  the  clause  under  consideration  established  the  general 
ticket  system  as  the  mode  by  which  members  are  to  be  elected.  This 
strange  doctrine  was  deduced  from  the  mode  of  electing  senators  and 
representatives.  And  the  argument  was,  that  the  members  of  the  state 
legislatures  could  not  be  divided  into  two  classes,  and  the  election  of  a 
senator  be  assigned  to  each.  And,  farther,  as  the  people  of  the  states 
were  to  elect  their  representatives,  they  could  not  be  divided  into  dis- 
tricts, and  those  residing  in  a  district  be  restricted  to  vote  for  a  single 
representative  ;  but  all  had  the  right  to  vote  for  all  the  representatives 
of  a  state.  But  the  minority  said,  the  position  that  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives must  be  chosen  by  all  the  people  of  the  several  states^  proved 
too  much  for  the  purposes  of  its  advocates.  It  went  even  beyond  the 
general  ticket,  and  required  not  only  that  all  the  people  of  a  state  must 
vote  for  as  many  persons  as  it  had  representatives,  but  each  representa- 
tive must  be  chosen  by  the  whole  people.  The  absurdity  of  the  argument 
did  not  stop  here.  All  the  people  of  every  state  would  be  bound  to 
"  choose  the  house  of  representatives ;"  that  is,  the  entire  aggregate  of 
representatives  from  all  the  states  ! 

But  the  minority  contended  that  the  provisions  of  the  constitution 
which  require,  that  "  the  house  of  representatives  shall  be  composed  of 
members  elected  every  second  year  by  the  people  of  the  several  states  ;" 
and  that  "  the  senate  of  the  TJnited  States  shall  be  composed  of  two 
senators  from  each  state;"  did  not  admit  of  the  above  construction. 
The  plain  object  of  them  was  to  establish  the  body  of  electors  of  the  two 

63 


994  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Jumses,  and  not  to  prescribe  the  manner  of  clioosing  their  members 
The  phraseology  must  be  received  as  it  was  universally  understood 
when  the  constitution  was  formed.  The  people  of  the  states  then  elected, 
as  now,  the  most  numerous  branch  of  their  legislatures ;  and  it  was 
therefore  obvious,  that,  when  the  constitution,  after  saying,  as  above, 
that  the  representatives  shall  be  elected  "  by  the  people  of  the  several 
states,"  immediately  aSds,  "  and  the  electors  in  each  state  shall  have 
the  qualifications  requisite  for  electing  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the 
state  legislature,"  the  object  was,  as  already  stated,  to  determine  who 
should  constitute  the  body  of  electors ;  in  other  words,  what  should  be 
the  qualifications  of  the  electors  of  representatives. 

The  minority  differed  also  in  their  construction  of  the  clause  of  the 
4th  section,  which  says  :  "  The  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding 
elections  for  senators  and  representatives  shall  be  prescribed  in  each 
state  by  the  legislature  thereof;  but  the  congress  may,  at  any  time,  by 
law,  make  or  alter  such  regulations,  except  as  to  the  place  of  choosing 
senators."  If  this  does  not  confer  the  power  to  determine  whether 
members  of  the  house  shall  be  elected  by  districts  or  by  general  ticket, 
then  the  state  legislatures  have  no  jurisdiction  over  that  part  of  the 
matter ;  and  they  have,  from  the  origin  of  the  government,  usurped 
power  in  establishing  the  one  mode  or  the  other,  at  their  pleasure.  The 
report  maintained  that  this  power  was  vested  both  in  the  state  legisla- 
tures and  in  congress.  Mr.  Madison,  in  the  convention,  when  this  clause 
was  under  consideration,  said :  "  This  view  of  the  question  seems  to 
decide  that  the  legislatures  of  the  states  ought  not  to  have  the  uncon- 
trolled right  of  regulating  the  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding 
elections.  These  are  words  of  great  latitude.  It  is  impossible  to  fore- 
see all  the  abuse  that  may  be  made  of  the  discretionary  power. 
Whether  the  elections  should  be  by  ballot,  or  viva  voce  ;  whether  the 
electors  should  assemble  at  this  place  or  at  that  place ;  should  be 
divided  into  districts  or  all  meet  at  one  place ;  should  all  vote  for  all 
the  representatives^  or  all  in  a  district  vote  for  a  member  allotted  to  that 
district ; — these  and  many  other  points  would  depend  upon  the  legisla- 
tures, and  might  materially  affect  the  appointments."     "  It  seemed  to 

be  as  improper  in  principle, to  give  to  the  state  legislatures  this 

great  authority  over  the  elections  of  the  people  in  the  general  legislature, 
as  it  would  be  to  give  to  the  latter  a  like  power  over  the  election  of 
their  representatives  in  the  state  legislatures." 

Mr.  Hamilton,  in  the  Federalist,  says :  "  They  have  submitted  the 
regulations  of  elections  of  the  federal  government,  in  the  first  instance^ 
to  the  local  administrations  ;  which,  in  ordinary  cases,  and  where  no 
improper  views  prevail,  may  be  both  more  convenient  and  more  satis- 
factory. But  they  have  reserved  to  the  national  authority  a  right  to 
interpose,  whenever  extraordinary  circumstances  might  render  that  in- 
terposition necessary  to  its  safety.  *  *  *  J3ut  there  remains  a  posi- 
tive advantage  which  will  accrue  to  this  disposition ; I  allude  to 

the  circumstance  of  uniformity  in  the  time  of  elections  for  the  federal 
house  of  representatives."  x\nd  in  the  New  York  convention  which 
adopted  the  constitution,  he  said  :  "  The  natural  and  proper  mode  of 
holding  elections  will  be  to  divide  the  states  into  districts  in  proportion 
to  the  number  to  be  elected." 


ArPENDK.  995 

ThQ  propriety  of  the  single  district  system  was  argued  from  the  fact, 
that,  by  general  ticket,  six  of  the  largest  states  could,  by  a  bare  majori- 
ty of  their  votes,  forming  about  one-fourth  of  the  freemen  of  the  United 
States,  elect  119  members,  and  thus  control  the  popular  branch  of  the 
government. 

The  minority  continue  their  argument  at  length,  and  conclude  with 
a  resolution,  that  the  sitting  members  of  the  four  states,  "not  having 
been  elected  in  pursuance  of  the  constitution  and  law,  their  seats, 
severally,  are  declared  vacant." 

Note  to  Page  152. 

After  the  death  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  there  was  found  among  his 
papers  a  manuscript  copy  of  Washington's  Farewell  Address  ;  informa- 
tion of  which  was  communicated  by  Richard  Peters  to  John  Jay,  in  a 
letter  of  the  14th  of  February,  1811.  The  letter  stated  also  that  a  cer- 
tain gentleman  had  also  a  copy  of  it,  in  the  same  hand  writing.  From 
these  facts  it  was  presumed,  that  Gen.  Hamilton  was  the  real,  and  Gen. 
Washington  only  the  reputed  author  of  this  address  which  had  contri- 
buted so  much  to  exalt  his  character  and  endear  his  name  to  the  Ameri- 
can people. 

The  answer  of  Judge  Jay  to  this  letter  disclosed  an  interesting  cir- 
cumstance connected  with  the  preparation  of  the  address,  which,  but  for 
Mr.  Jay,  would  probably  never  have  been  made  public:  and  that 
"  monument  of  human  excellence,"  as  he  appropriately  terms  it,  might 
have  carried  with  it  doubts  as  to  its  real  authorship  through  all  future 
time.  The  whole  letter  of  Mr.  Jay  would  be  read  with  interest.  He 
bears  testimony,  from  personal  knowledge,  not  only  to  the  moral  worth, 
but  to  the  "  political  talents  and  wisdom  "  of  Washington,  and  to  his 
ample  ability  to  write  such  an  address.  He  then  gives  what  might  be 
reasonably  supposed  to  be  evidence  of  its  having  been  written  by  him ; 
and  concludes  his  letter  as  follows: 

"  They  who  knew  president  Washington  and  his  various  endowments, 
qualijfications,  and  virtues,  know  that,  (aggregately  considered,)  they 
formed  a  tout  ensemble  which  has  rarely  been  equaled,  and  perhaps 
never  excelled. 

"  Thus  much  for  presumptive  evidence ,  I  will  now  turn  your  atten- 
tion to  some  that  is  direct. 

"  The  history,  (if  it  may  be  so  called,)  of  the  address  is  not  unknown 
to  me  ;  but  as  I  came  to  the  knowledge  of  it  under  implied  confidence, 
I  doubted  when  I  first  received  your  letter,  whether  I  ought  to  disclose 
it.  On  more  mature  reflection  I  became  convinced  that,  if  president 
Washington  were  now  alive,  and  informed  of  the  facts  in  question,  he 
would  not  only  authorize,  but  also  desire  me  to  reduce  it  to  writing; 
that,  when  necessary,  it  might  be  used  to  invalidate' the  imputations  to 
which  those  facts  give  color. 

"  This  consideration  terminated  my  doubts.  I  do  not  think  that  a 
disclosure  is  necessary  at  this  time ;  but  I  fear  such  a  mc^ment  will 
arrive.  Whether  I  shall  then  be  alive,  or  in  capacity  to  give  testimony, 
is  so  uncertain,  that,  in  order  to  avoid  the  risk  of  either,  I  shall  now 
reduce  it  to  writing,  and  commit  it  to  your  care  and  discretion,  '  de  bene 
esse,'  as  the  lawyers  say. 


996  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

*'  Some  time  before  the  address  appeared,  colonel  (afterwards  general) 
Hamilton  informed  me  that  he  had  received  a  letter  from  president 
Washington,  and  with  it  the  draft  of  a  farewell  address,  which  the 
president  had  prepared,  and  on  which  he  requested  our  opinion.  He 
then  proposed  to  fix  on  a  day  for  an  interview  at  my  house  on  the  sub- 
ject. A  day  was  accordingly  appointed ;  and  on  that  day  Col.  Hamil- 
ton attended.  He  observed  to  me  in  words  to  this  effect,  that,  after 
having  read  and  examined  the  draft,  it  appeared  to  him  to  be  suscepti- 
ble of  improvement.  That  the  easiest  and  best  way  was  to  leave  the 
draft  untouched,  and  in  its  fair  state  ;  and  to  write  the  whole  over  with 
such  amendments,  alterations,  and  corrections,  as  he  thought  were  advisa- 
ble ;  and  that  he  had  done  so.  He  then  proposed  to  read  it  ;  and  we 
proceeded  deliberately  to  discuss  and  consider  it,  paragraph  by  para- 
graph, until  the  whole  met  our  mutual  approbation.  Some  amendments 
were  made  during  the  interview,  but  none  of  much  importance. 

"  Although  this  business  had  not  been  hastily  despatched,  yet  aware 
of  the  consequence  of  such  a  paper,  I  suggested  the  giving  it  a  further 
critical  examination ;  but  he  declined  it,  saying  he  was  pressed  for  time^ 
and  was  anxious  to  return  the  draft  to  the  president  without  delay. 

**  It  afterwards  occurred  to  me,  that  a  certain  proposition  was  ex- 
pressed in  terms  too  general  and  unqualified  ;  and  I  hinted  it  in  a  letter 
to  the  president.  As  the  business  took  the  course  above  mentioned,  a 
recurrence  to  the  draft  was  unnecessary,  and  it  was  not  read.  There 
was  this  advantage  in  the  course  pursued  :  the  president's  draft  remained, 
(as  delicacy  required,)  fair  and  not  obscured  by  interlineations,  &c. 
By  comparing  it  with  the  paper  sent  with  it,  he  would  immediately 
observe  the  particular  emendations  and  corrections  that  were  proposed, 
and  would  find  them  standing  in  their  intended  places.  Hence  he  was 
enabled  to  review,  and  to  decide  the  whole  matter,  with  much  greater 
clearness  and  facility,  than  if  he  had  received  them  in  separate  and  de- 
tached notes,  and  with  detailed  references  to  the  pages  and  lines  where 
they  were  advised  to  be  introduced." 

This  letter  appears  in  Niles'  Register  of  October  21,  1826,  about 
three  years  before  Mr.  Jay's  death.  Whether  it  had  been  in  print  pre- 
tIous  to  that  time,  or  not,  or  what  was  the  immediate  cause  of  its 
publication,  we  are  not  informed. 

In  1836,  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Madison,  which  occurred  the  same 
year,  remarks  appeared  in  several  papers,  ascribing  to  him  the  author- 
ship of  Washington's  valedictory  address,  and  tending  to  produce  an 
erroneous  impression.  Mr,  Sparks,  editor  of  the  writings  of  Washington, 
in  anticipation  of  their  publication,  caused  to  be  published  the  corres- 
pondence between  Washington  and  Madison  on  the  subject. 

In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Madison,  dated  May  20,  1792,  Washington,  not 
having  determined  to  be  a  candidate  for  reelection,  requested  him  to 
draw  up  an  address,  to  be  used  in  ease  he  should  conclude  to  retire,  and 
mentioned  the  principal  topics  which  he  wished  it  to  contain.  Mr. 
Madison^  in  compliance  with  the  request,  prepared  a  paper,  and  subse- 
quently delivered  it  to  him  in  person.  Having  consented  to  a  reelection^ 
he  had  no  occasion  to  use  it.  Compared  with  the  address  published 
four  years  after,  it  will  be  found  to  bear  but  a  slight  resemblance  to  it, 
while  it  is  evident  that  it  was  consulted  in  preparing  the  final  address. 


APPENDIX. 


997 


The  draft  of  Mr.  Madison,  it  is  unnecessary  to  Bay,  was  an  able  one, 
about  one-fourth  of  the  length  of  the  last ;  and  is  said  to  have  met 
Washington's  entire  approbation  at  the  time. 


STATISTICS. 


STATEMENT   OF    THE    EliECTORALi  VOTES 

For  the  different  candidates  for  President  and  Vice-President,  from  1789  to  1853, 
The  year  of  each  election  refers  to  the  time  of  counting  the  electoral  votes,  and 
not  to  the  time  at  which  they  were  given. 

At  the  first  four  elections,  no  person  was  named  for  vice-president  Two  per- 
sons were  voted  for  by  each  elector ;  and  the  person  having  next  to  the  highest 
number  of  votes,  was  elected  vice-president. 

1789 — Number  of  Electors,  69. 

George  Washington,  Va 69    John  Rutledge,  S.  C. 6 

John  Adams,  Mass 34     John  Hancock,  Mass 4 

JohnJay,  N.  y 9     George  Clinton,  iV.  Y 3 

R.  H.  Harrison, 6     All  others 8 

Three  states,  viz :  New  York,  entitled  to  5  electoral  votes,  Rhode  Island  3,  and 
North  Carolina  7,  did  not  vote  at  this  election.  The  first  had  not  passed  an 
electoral  law ;  the  two  last  had  not  yet  adopted  the  constitution. 

1793 — Number  of  Electors,  136. 

Thomas  Jefferson 5 


George  Washington,  (3  vacancies)..  132 

John  Adams 77 

George  Clinton 50 


Aaron  Burr,  N.  Y. 1 


1797 — Number  of  Electors,  138. 


John  Adams 71 

Thomas  Jefferson, 68 

Thomas  Pinckney, 69 

Aaron  Burr, 30 

Samuel  Adams,  Mass 15 


©liver  Ellsworth,  Conn 11 

George  Clinton, 7 

John  Jay, 6 

James  Iredell,  N.  C 3 

All  others, 7 


1801 — Number  of  Electors,  138. 

Thomas  Jefferson, 73  |  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney,  S.  C. 64 

Aaron  Burr, 73    John  Jay, 1 

John  Adams, 65  | 

The  two  highest  numbers  of  votes  being  equal,  the  election  devolved  upon  the 
house  of  representatives.  Mr.  Jefferson  was  chosen  on  the  36th  ballot.  Before 
the  next  election,  the  present  mode  was  established,  by  the  adoption  of  the  i2th 
amendment  of  the  constitution. 


998 


THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


1805 — Number  of  Electors,  176. 


For  President. 

Thomas  Jefferson, 162 

Charles  C.  Pinckney 14 

1809 — Number  of  Electors,  176. 


For  Vice-President. 

George  Clinton, 162 

Kufus  King,  lY.  Y 14 


George  Clinton, 113 

Rufus  King, 47 

John  Langdon,  N.  H 9 

Scattering  and  vacancy, 7 


James  Madison,    Va 122 

Charles  C.  Pinckney, 47 

George  Clinton, 6 

One  vacancy, 1 

1813 — Number  of  Electors,  217. 

James  Madison, 128  I  Elbridge  Gerry,  Mass 131 

De  Witt  Clinton,  iV.  Y 89  |  Jared  Ingersoll,  Pa 86 

1817 — Number  of  Electors,  221. 

James  Monroe,  Va 183 

Rufus  King, 34 

Vacancies, 4 


1821- 


Daniel  D.  Tompkins,  N.  Y 183 

John  E.  Howard,  Mass 22 

James  Ross, 5 

All  others  and  vacancies, 11 

Number  of  Electors,  232. 


James  Monroe, 231 

John  Quincy  Adams, 1 


Daniel  D.  Tompkins, 218 

Richard  Stockton,  N.J 8 

Daniel  Rodney,  Del 4 

All  others, 2 


1825 — Number  of  Electors,  261. 


Andrew  Jackson,  Tenn 99 

John  Quincy  Adams, 84 

Wm.  H.  Crawford,  Ga 41 

Henry  Clay, 37 


John  C.  Calhoun,  S^C 182 

Nathan  Sanford,  iV.  Y 30 

Nathaniel  Macon,  N.  C 24 

Andrew  Jackson, 13 

Martin  Van  Buren, 9 

Henry  Clay,  2  ;  \{r.  I.)  not  voting    3 

No  candidate  for  president  having  a  majority  of  all  the  votes,  the  election  was 
made  by  the  house  from  the  three  having  received  the  highest  numbers  of  votes ; 
the  representatives  voting  by  states.  Mr.  Adams  received  the  votes  of  13  states, 
(a  majority  ;)  Gen.  Jackson,  7  ;  Mr.  Crawford,  4. 

1829 — Number  op  Electors,  261. 


Andrew  Jackson, 178 

John  Quincy  Adams, 83 

1833- 


John  C.  Calhoun, 171 

Richard  Rush,  Pa 83 

John  Sergeant,  Pa 7 

Number  op  Electors,  288. 


Andrew  Jackson, 219 

Henry  Clay 49 

John  Floyd,  Va 11 

Wm.  Wirt,  Va.,  (anti-mason,) 7 

Vacancies, 2 


Martin  Van  Buren, 189 

John  Sergeant, .-- 49 

William  Wilkins,  Pa 30 

Henry  Lee,    Va 11 

Amos  Ellmaker,  Pa.,  (anti-mason,).  7 

Vacancies, 2 

1837 — Number  op  Electors,  294. 


Martin  Van  Buren, 170 

William  H.  Harrison,  0 73 

Hugh  L.  White,  Tenn 26 

Daniel  Webster 14 

Willie  P.  Mangum,  N.  C 11 

No  candidate  for  vice-president  having  received  a  majority.  Col.  Johnson  was 
elected  by  the  senate. 


Richard  M.  Johnson,  Ky 147 

Francis  Granger,  N.  Y 77 

John  Tyler,  Va 47 

William"  Smith, /S.  C 23 


APPENDIX. 


999 


1841 — Number  of  Electors,  294. 


William  H.  Harrison, 234 

Martin  Van  Buren, 60 


John  Tyler, 234 

Richard  M,  Johnson, 48 

Littleton  W.  Tazewell,  Va 11 

James  K.  Polk,  Tenn 1 

1845 — Number  of  Electors,  275. 

James  K.  Polk, 170  1  George  M.  Dallas,  Pa 170 

Henry  Clay, 105  |  Theodore  Frelinghuysen, 106 

1849 — Number  of  Electors,  290. 

Zachary  Taylor,  La 163  I  Millard  Fillmore,  N.  Y 163 

Lewis  Cass, 127  |  William  0.  Butler,  Ky 127 

1853 — Number  of  Electors,  296. 
Franklin  Pierce,  N.  H 254  I  William  R.  King,  Ala 254 


Winfield  Scott,  Va 42  |  William  A.  Graham, 42 


Secretaries  of  State. 


Thomas  Jefferson,  Va..  .Sept.  26,  1789 
Edmund  Randolph,  Fa. .  ..Jan.  2,  1794 
Timothv  Pickering,  ikfas5.  Dec.  16,  1795 

John  Marshall,  Va May  13,  1800 

James  Madison,  Va March  5,  1801 

Robert  Smith,  Md March  6,  1809 

James  Monroe,  Fa Nov.  25,  1811 

John  Q.  Adams,  Mass..  .March  3,  1817 

Henry  Clay,  Ky March  8,  1825 

Martin  Van  Buren,  iV.y.  March  6,  1829 
Edward  Livingston,  La..  1831 

Louis  M'Lane,  Del March,  7,  1833 


John  Forsyth,  Ga 

Daniel  Webster,  Mass . . , 
Hugh  S.  Legare,  S.  C. 

Abel  P.  Upshur,  Va 

John  Nelson,  (acting)  . , 
John  C.  Calhoun,  S.  C. 
James  Buchanan,  Pa... 
John  M.  Clayton,  Dei.. 
Daniel  Webster,  Mass . . . 
Edward  Everett,  Mass . . 
Wm.  L.  Marcy,  N.  Y... 


.  June  27, 
.  March  5, 
. .  May  9, 
.June  24, 
.Feb.  29, 
,  March  6, 
.  March  5, 
March  7, 
.  July  20, 

,  March  5, 


1834 
1841 
1843 
1843 
1844 
1844 
1845 
1849 
1850 
1852 
1853 


Secretaries  of  the  Treasury. 


Alex.  Hamilton,  N.Y....  Sept.  11,  1789 

Oliver  Wolcott,  Conn Feb.  3,  1795 

Samuel  Dexter,  Mass Dec.  31,  1800 

Albert  Gallatin,  Pa Jan.  26,  1802 

Geo.  W.  Campbell,  Tenn.. Feb.  9,  1814 

Alex.  J.    Dallas,  Pa Oct.  6,  1814 

Wm.  H.  Crawford,  Ga... March  5,  1817 

Richard  Rush,  Pa "      7,  1825 

Samuel  D.  Ingham,  Pa..       "     6,  1829 

Louis  M  'Lane,  Del 1831 

Wm.  J.  Duane,  Pa 1833 


1833 


Roger  B.  Taney,  Md 

(not  confirmed.) 
Levi  Woodbury,  N.H....  June  21,  1834 

Thomas  Ewing,  O March  5,  1841 

Walter  Forward,  Pa Sept.  13,  1841 

John  C.  Spencer,  N.  Y. .  March  3, 1843 

George  M.  Bibb,  Ky Jan.  15,  1844 

Robert  J.  Walker,  Miss..  March  5, 1845 
Wm.  M.  Meredith,  Pa...       "      7,  1849 

Thomas  Corwin,  O July  20,  1850 

James  Guthrie,  Ky March  5,  1863 


Secretaries  of  War. 


Henry  Knox,  Mass Sept.  12,  1789 

Timothy  Pickering,  Mass..  Jan.  2,  1795 

James  M'Henry,  Md Jan.  27,  1796 

Samuel  Dexter,  Mass ....  May  13, 1800 

Roger  Griswold,   Conn Feb.  3,1801 

Henry  Dearborn,  M255,, March  4,  1801 
William  Eustis,  Mass...  "  7,  1809 
John  Armstrong,  N.  Y.. .  Jan.  19,  1813 

James  Monroe,  Va Sept.  26,  1814 

Wm.  H.  Crawford,  Ga..  .March  2,  1815 
Isaac  Shelbv,  Ky.  (dec.)..  "  5,  1817 
John  C.  Calhoun,  S.  C.  .Dec,  16,  1817 

James  Barbour,  Va March  7,  1825 

Peter  B.  Porter,  N.  y....May  26,  1828 


John  H.  Eaton,  Tenn March  9, 1829 

Lewis  Cass,  Ohio 1831 

Joel  R.  Poinsett,  S.  C... March  7,  1837 

John  BeU,  Tenn "      5,1841 

John  M'Lean,  (declined).  Sept.  13,a841 
John  C.  Spencer,  N.  Y..  .Oct.  12,  1841 

James  M.  Porter,  Pa March  8,  1843 

William  Wilkins,  Pa Feb.  15,  1844 

Wm.  L.  Marcy,  .V.  Y. . . .  March  5,  1845 
George  W.  Crawford,  Ga.  "  7,  1849 
Edmund  Bates,  (declined)  July  20,  1850 
Charles  M.  Conrad,  Zya..Aug.  15,  1850 
Jefiisrson  Davis,  Miss..  .March  5,  1853 


lOQO 


THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


Secretaries  of  the  Navy. 


George  Cabot,  Mass May  8,  1798 

Bcnj.  Stoddart,  Aid "  21,  1798 

Robert  Smith,  Md Jan.  26,  1802 

J.  Crownin.shield,  Mass.. Ma,vch  2, 1805 
Paul  Hamilton,  S.C...  "  7,  1809 
B.  W.  Crowninshield,  Mass.Dec.  17,  1814 
Smith  Thompson,  N.  F..Nov.  30,  1818 
Samuel  L.  Southard,  A:  J.. Dec.  9,  1823 

John  Branch,  N.  C March  9,  1829 

Levi  Woodbury,  N.  H...  1831 

Mahlon  Dickerson,  N.  J. .  June  80, 1834 


Jas.  K.  Paulding,  N.  Y. . 
Geo.  E.  Badger,  N.  C. 
Abel  P.  Upshur,  Va... 
David  Henshaw,  Mass. . 
Thomas  W.  Gilmer,  Va. 

John  Y.  Mason,  Va 

George  Bancroft,  Mass. 

John  Y.  Mason,  Va 

VVra.  A.  Graham,  N.  C. 
James  C.  Dobbin,  N.  C. 


..June  30, 

1838 

.March  5, 

1841 

.  Sept.  13, 

1841 

..July  24, 

1843 

..Feb.  15 

1844 

March  14, 

1844 

"      10, 

1845 

1846 

.July  20, 

1850 

.  March  5, 

1853 

Secretaries  of  the  interior. 

Thomas  E wing,  O March  7,  1849  I  Robert  M'Clelland,  MicA.. March,  1853 

Alex.  H.  H.  Stuart,  Fa..  Sept.  12,  1850 


Postmasters-General. 


Samuel  Osgood,  Mass. .  .Be-pt  26,  1789 
Timothy  Pickering,  Mass..  Nov.  7,  1794 

Jacob  Habersham,  Ga Feb.  25, 1795 

Gideon  Granger,  Conn Jan.  26,  1802 

Return  J.  Meigs,  O..  ..March  17,  1814 

John  M'Lean,  O Dec  9,  1823 

William  T.  Barry,  Ky... March  9,  1829 
Amos  Kendall,  Ky May  1,  1835 


John  M.  Niles,  Conn May  25, 

Francis  Granger,  N.  Y... March  6, 
Charles  A.  Wicklifife,iCy..Sept.  13, 
Cave  Johnson,  Tenn. .  . .  March  5, 

Jacob  Callomer,  Vt "      7, 

Nathan  K.  Hall,  N.  Y. . . .  July  20, 
Samuel  D.  Hubbard,  Conn.  Oct.  , 
James  Campbell,  Tenn.. March.  5, 


Attorneys-General. 


Edmund  Randolph,  Fa..  Sept-  26,  1789 
William  Bradford,  Pa....  Jan.  27,  1794 

Charles  Lee,  Va Dec-  10,  1795 

Levi  Lincoln,  Mass March  5,  1801 

Robert  Smith,  Md "     3,  1805 

John  Breckenridge,  .Ky. . .  Jan.  17,  1806 

Caesar  A-  Rodney,  Del Jan-  20,  1807 

William  Piuknev,  Del.... Dec  11,  1811 

Richard  Rush,  Pa Feb.  10,  1814 

William  Wirt,  Va Dec-  16,  1817 

John M'P.  Berrien,  Ga.. March  19,  1829 
Roger  B.  Taney,  Md Dec-       1831 


Benj.  F.  Butler,  N.  Y..  ..Dec  25, 

Felix  Grundy,  Teim Sept.  1, 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Pa Jan-  11, 

John  J.  Crittenden,  Ky.. M&rch  5, 
Hugh  S.  Legare,  S.  C.Se^t.  13, 

John  Nelson,  Md July  1, 

John  Y.  Mason,  Va March  5, 

Nathan  Clifford,  Me.... 

Isaac  Toucey,  Conn 

Reverdy  Johnson,  Md..  March  6, 
John  J.  Crittenden,  Ky..Ju\j  20, 
Caleb  Gushing,  Mass..  . .  March  6, 


1840 
1841 
1841 
1845 
1S49 
1850 
1852 
1853 


1835 
1838 
1840 
1841 
1S41 
1843 
1845 
1847 
1848 
1849 
1850 
1853 


Chief  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court. 


John  Jay,  N.   Y Sept.  26,  1789 

John  Rutledge,  S.  C July  1, 1795 

William  Gushing,  Mass.. Jan.  27,  1796 
Oliver  Ellsworth,  Co7i?i..March  4,  1796 


John  Jay,  N.  Y Dec  19,  1800 

John  Marshall,  Va Jan.  27,  1801 

Roger  B.  Taney,  Md Dec  28,  1835 


Associate  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court. 


John  Rutledge,  5^.  C Sept.  26,  1789 

William  Cushing,  Mass.,      «•     27,  1789 
Robert  H   Harrison,  Md.      •<     28,  1789 

James  Wilson,  Pa «     29,  1789 

John  Blair,  Fa "     30,1769 

James  Iredell,  N.  C Feb-  10,  1790 

Thomas  Johnson,  Md Nov.  7,  1791 

Wm.  Patterson,  N.   Y..  .March  1,  1793 

Samuel  Chase,  Md Jan.  27,  1796 

Bushrod  Washington,  Fa.  Dec  20,  1798 
Wm.  Johnson,  S.  C... March  26,  1804 


Joseph  Story,  Mass Nov.  18, 

Smith  Thompson,  N.Y....  Dec  9, 

Robert  Trimble,  Ky March  9, 

John  M'Lean,  O "       7, 

Henry  Baldwin,  Pa Jan-  6, 

James  M.Wayne,  Ga Jan.  18, 

Philip  B.  Barbour,  Fa.. March  15, 

William  Smith,  .A^a "        8, 

John  Catron,  Tenn "        8, 

John  M'Kinley,  Ala Sept.  3, 

Peter  V.  Daniel,  Va March  3, 


1811 

1823 
1826 
1829 
1830 
1S35 
1836 
1837 
1837 
1837 
1837 


APPENDIX, 


1001 


Brock.  Livingston,  N.  Y. .  Jan.  16,  1807 

Thomas  Todd,  Va March  3,  1807 

Levi  Lincoln,  Mass Jan.  7,  1811 

John  Q.Adams,  (declined)  Feb.  22,  1811 
Gabriel  Duval,  Md Nov.  18,  1811 


Samuel  Nelson,  N.  Y....Feb.  1845 

Levi  Woodbury,  N.  H....  Jan.  1846 

Robert  C.  Grier,  Pa 1846 

Benj.  R.  Curtis,  ilf«s5 1850 

Ed.  A.  Bradford,  La 1852 


Congress  of  the  United  States. 

The  number  of  representatives  from  each  state,  until  after  the  first  enumeration 
in  1790,  was  specified  in  the  constitution.  By  the  act  of  apportionment  of  1792, 
the  several  states  were  allowed  a  representative  for  every  33,000  of  the  representa- 
tive population ;  which  gave  an  aggregate  representation  of  106.  In  1802,  tho 
ratio  of  representation  under  the  census  of  1800,  was  again  fixed  at  33,000,  making 
a  house  of  142  members.  Under  the  census  1810,  the  ratio  was  35,000,  and  the 
number  of  members  182,  Under  the  census  of  1820,  the  ratio  was  40,000,  and 
the  number  of  members  213.  After  1830,  the  ratio  was  made  47,700,  with  a 
house  of  240,  After  the  census  of  1840,  a  ratio  of  70,680  was  adopted,  making 
223  members.  After  the  census  of  1850,  the  ratio  was  93,000,  giving  an  aggregate 
representation  of  233  members,  of  which  number,  California  had  one ;  but  by 
special  enactment  that  state  was  allowed  an  additional  member,  making  in  all  234. 

Compensation  of  Members  of  Congress. 

From  the  first  congress,  in  1789,  inclusive,  until  March  4,  1795,  senators  and 
representatives  received  each  S6  per  diem,  and  $6  for  every  twenty  miles  travel. 
From  March  4,  1795,  to  March  4, 1796,  senators  received  S7,  and  representatives 
$6  per  diem.  From  March  4, 1796,  until  December  5, 1815,  the  per  diem  was  S6,  and 
the  mileage  S6,  to  senators  and  representatives.  From  Dec,  4,  1815,  until  March 
4, 1817,  each  senator  and  representative  received  Sl,500  per  annum;  with  a  propor- 
tional deduction  for  absence,  from  any  cause  but  sickness.  The  president  of  the 
senate  pro  tempore,and  speaker  of  the  house,  $3,000  per  annum,  each.  From  March 
4,  1817,  the  compensation  to  members  of  both  houses  has  been  $8  per  diem,  and 
S8  for  every  twenty  miles  travel ;  and  to  the  president  of  the  senate  pro  tempore, 
and  speaker  of  the  house,  $16  per  diem. 


Speakers  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 


Congress. 

1st,  Frederick  A.  Muhlenburg,  Pa. 

2d,  Jonathan  Trumbull,  Conn. 

3d,  F.  A.  Muhlenburg,  Pa. 

4th,  Jonathan  Dayton,  N.  J. 

5th,  Jonathan  Dayton,  N.  J. 

6th,  Theodore  Sedgwick,  Mass. 

7th,  Nathaniel  Macon,  iV,  C. 

8th,  Nathaniel  Macon,  N.  C. 

9th,  Nathaniel  Macon,  N.  C. 

10th,  Joseph  B,  Varnum,  Mass. 

11th,  Joseph  B,  Varnum,  Mass. 

12th,  Henry  Clay,  Ky. 

13th,  Henry  Clay,  Ky. 

"  Langdon  Cheves,  S.  C. 

14th,  Henry  Clay,  Ky. 

15th,  Henry  Clay,  Ky. 

\6th,  Henry  Clay,  Ky. 

John  W.  Taylor,  N.  Y. 


Congress. 

17th,  P.  P.  Barbour,  Va. 

18th,  Henry  Clay,  Ky. 

19th,  John'W.  Taylor,  JV.  Y.    • 

20th,  Andrew  Stevenson,  Va. 

21st,  Andrew  Stevenson,  Va. 

22d,  Andrew  Stevenson,  Va. 

23d,  Andrew  Stevenson,  Va. 

"  John  Bell,  Tenn. 

24th,  James  K.  Polk,  Tenn. 

25th,  James  K.  Polk,  Tenn.   ■ 

26th,  Robert  M.  T.  Hunter,  Va, 

27th,  John  White,  Ky. 

28th,  John  W.  Jones,  Va. 

29th,  John  W.  Davis,  Ind. 

30th,  Robert  C.  Winthrop,  Mass. 

31st,  Howell  Cobb,  Ga. 

32d,  Linn  Boyd,  Ky. 

33d.  


1002 


THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


Senators  Elected  Presidents  of  the  Senate  pro  tempore. 


John  Lansdon,  N.  II April,  1789 

Richard  Henry  Lee,  Fa "     1792 

John  Laniidon,  N.  H May,  1792 

John  Langdon,  A^.  H March,  1793 

Ralph  Izard,  S.  C May,  1794 

Henry  Tazewell,  Va...'. Feb. ,  1795 

Samuel  Liverraore,  N.  H..  . May,  1796 

William  Bin<?ham,  Penn Feb-  1797 

William  Bradford,  R.I July,  1797 

Jacob  Read,  S-  C Nov-,  1797 

Theodore  Sedgwick.  Tkfass..  June,  1798 

John  Lawrence,  N.  Y Dec,  1798 

James  Ross,  Penn March,  1799 

Samuel  Livermore,  N-  H Dec,  1799 

Uriah  Tracey,  Conn May,  1800 

John  E.  Howard,  Md Nov.,  1800 

James  Hillhouse,  Conn Feb.,  1801 

Abraham  Baldwin,  Ga Dec,  1801 

Stephen  R.  Bradley,  Vt Dec,  1802 

John  Brown,  Ky Oct,  1803 

Jesse  Franklin,  N.  C March,  1804 

Joseph  Anderson,  Tenn Jan.,  1805 

Samuel  Smith,  Md.. Dec.  1805 


Stephen  R.  Bradley,  Vt Dec,  1808 

John  Milledge,  Ga Jan.,  1809 

Andrew  Gregg,  Penn "       " 

John  Gaillard,  >S'.  C Feb.,  1810 

John  Pope,  Ky Feb.  1811 

William  H-  Crawford,  G^a.. March,  1812 
Joseph  B-  Varnum,  Mass..  . . Dec.,  1813 

John  Gaillard,  S.  C April,  1814 

James  Barbour,  Va Feb.,  1819 

John  Gaillard.  S.   C Jan.,  1820 

Nathaniel  Macon,  N.  C May,  1826 

Samuel  Smith,  Md "       1828 

Littleton  W.  Tazewell,  Fa.. July,  1832 

Hugh  L.  White,  Tenn Dec,  1832 

George  Poindexter,  Miss Jan-,  1834 

John  Tvler,  Va March,  1835 

William  R.  King,  Ala July,  1836 

Samuel  L.  Southard,  A^.  J,. Mar.,  1841 
Willie  P.  Mangum,  NC.t..  May,  1842 
David  R.Atchison,  Missouri.,  kug.,  1846 

William  R.  King,  Ala July,  1850 

and 
David  R.  Atchison,  Missouri, .  Dec,  1852 


APPENDIX. 


im 


IMPORTS    AND    EXPORTS 

From  the  year  1821  to  1850,  with  the  Net  Revenue  accruing  from 
THE  Imports. 


Imports, 

Exports, 

Excess 

Imports, 

Exports, 

including 

exclusive 

net 

coin  and 

coin  and 

Tear. 

specie. 

of  specie. 

revenue. 

bullion. 

bullion. 

1821 

^62,585,724 

^64,974,382 

^15,155,418 

1822 

82,241,541 

72,160,281 

21,219,116 

1823 

77,579,267 

74,699,030 

17,717,830 

1824 

80,549,007 

75,986,657 

20,215,059 

1825 

96,340,075 

99,535,388 

25,387,904 

^6,150,765 

^8,932,034 

1826 

84,974,477 

77,595,322 

18,997,478 

6,880,966 

4,704,533 

1827 

79,484,068 

82,324,827 

22,378,046 

8,151,130 

8,014,880 

1828 

88,509,824 

72,264,686 

24,890.337 

7,489,741 

8,243,476 

1829 

74,492,227 

72,358,671 

22,296,512 

7,403,612 

4,924,020 

1830 

70,876,920 

73,849,508 

22,833,573 

8,155,964 

2,178,773 

1831 

103,191,124 

81,310,583 

30,312,851 

7,305,945 

9,014,931 

1832 

101,029,266 

87,176,943 

21,488,890 

5,907,504 

5,565,340 

1833 

108,181,311 

90,140,433 

14,797,782 

7,070.368 

2,611,701 

1834 

126,521,332 

104,336,972 

13,458,111 

17,911,632 

2,076,758 

1835 

149,8^,742 

121,693,577 

21,552,272 

13,131,447 

6,477,775 

1836 

189,980,035 

128,663,040 

26,325,839 

13,400,881 

4,324,336 

1837 

140,989,217 

117,419,376 

13,315,129 

10,516,414 

5,976,249 

1838 

113,717,404 

108,486,616 

15,373,238 

17,747,116 

3,508,046 

1839 

162,092,132 

121,028,416 

20,560,439 

5,595,176 

8,776,743 

1840 

107,141,519 

132,085,946 

10,159,339 

8,882,813 

8,417,014 

1841 

127,946,477 

121,851,803 

15,516,589 

4,988,633 

10,034,332 

1842 

100,162,087 

104,691,534 

12,780,173 

4,087,016 

4,813,539 

1843* 

64,763,799 

84,346,480 

6,132,272 

22,390,559 

1,520,791 

1844 

108,435,035 

111,200,046 

26,183,570 

5,830,429 

5,454,214 

1845 

117,254,564 

114,646,606 

27,528,112 

4,070,242 

8,606,495 

1846 

121,691,797 

113  488,516 

26,712,608 

3,777,732 

3,905,268 

1847 

146,545,638 

158,648,622 

23,747,864 

24,121,289 

1,907,739 

1848 

154,977,928 

154,436,436 

31,757,070 

6,360,224 

15,841,620 

1849 

147,857,439 

145.755,820 

28,346.738 

6,651,240 

5,404,648 

1850 

178,138,318 

151^898,720 

39,668,686 

4,628,792 

7,522,994 

1851 

6,453.592 

29,472,752 

1852 

5,503,544 

42,674,135 

*  Nine  Months. 

1004 


THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 


A    STATEMENT 

Exhibiting  the  Value  of  certain  articles  Imported  Annually  prom 
1821  TO  1852,  inclusive. 


Year. 

Cotton. 

Tobacco. 

Rice. 

Breadstuff's . 

1821 

1^20,157,484 

^5,648,962 

^1,494,307 

$12,341,901 

1822 

24,035,058 

6,222,838 

1,553,482 

13,886,856 

1823 

20,445,520 

6,282,672 

1,820,985 

13,767,847 

1824 

21,947,401 

4,855,566 

1,882,982 

15,059,484 

1825 

36,846,649 

6,115,623 

1,925,245 

11,634,449 

1826 

25,025,214 

5,347,208 

1,917,445 

11,303,496 

1827 

29,359,545 

6,577,123 

2,343,908 

11,685,556 

1828 

22,487^229 

5,269,960 

2,620,696 

11,461,144 

1829 

26,575,311 

4,982,974 

2,514,370 

13,131,858 

1830 

29,674,883 

5,586,365 

1,986,824 

12,075,430 

1831 

25,289,492 

4,892,388 

2,016,267 

17,538,227 

1832 

31,724,682 

5,999,769 

2,152,631 

12,424,703 

1833 

36,191,105 

5,755,968 

2,744,418 

14,209,128 

1834 

49,448,402 

6,595,305 

2,122,272 

11,524,024 

1835 

64,961,302 

8,250,577 

2,210,331 

12,009,399 

1836 

71,284,925 

10,058,640 

2,548,750 

•  10,614,130 

1837 

63,240,102 

5,795,647 

2,309,270 

9,588,359 

1838 

61,556,811 

7,392,029 

1,721,819 

9,636,650 

1839 

61,238,982 

9,832,943 

2,460,198 

14,147,779 

1840 

53,870,307 

9,883,957 

1,942,076 

19,067,535 

1841 

54,330,341 

12,576,703 

2,010,107 

17,196,102 

1842 

47,593.464 

9,540,755 

1,907,387 

16,992,876 

1843 

49,119,806 

4,650,979 

1,625,726 

11,204,123 

1844 

54,063,501 

8,397,255 

2,182,468 

17,970,135 

1845 

51,739,643 

7,469,819 

2,160,456 

16,743,421 

1846 

42,767,341 

8,478,270 

2,564,991 

27,701,121 

1847 

63,415,848 

7,242,08f-. 

3,605,896 

68,701,921 

1848 

61,998,294 

7,551,122 

2,331,824 

37,472,751 

1849 

66,396,967 

5,804,207 

2,569,262 

38,155,507 

1850 

71,984,616 

9,951,023 

2,631,557 

26,051,373 

1851 

112,315,317 

9,219,251 

2,170,927 

21,948,651 

1852 

87,965,732 

10,031,283 

2,470,029 

25,857,027 

INDEX.  1  [)05 


INDEX. 


Abolition  of  slavery  in  District  of  Columbia,  466  ,  653  ;  movement,  history  of, 
640,  &c. ;  opposition  meetings  at  the  north,  and  the  press,  641-3  ;  rewards 
for  abolitionists,  641. 

Act  of  neutrality,  133;  navigation  acts  of  Great  Britain,  35;  of  the  United 
States,  283. 

Adams,  John,  on  the  right  of  colonial  taxation,  34 ;  minister  to  Holland,  52 ;  to 
England,  55 ;  elected  president,  156 ;  inaugurated,  157  ;  his  cabinet, 
160 ;  opposition  to  his  administration  by  Hamilton  and  others,  ITS- 
ISO,  1S9. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  commissioner  to  Ghent,  264 ;  secretary  of  state,  elected 
president,  and  inaugurated,  343-4 ;  charge  of  coalition  with  Clay,  345, 
&c. ;  controversy  with  Giles,  429-41 ;  with  the  Boston  federalists, 
442,  &c. 

Adams,  Charles  Francis,  nominated  for  vice-president,  881. 

Adet,  French  minister,  presents  the  colors  of  France,  141 ;  interference  of  in  the 
election,  153  ;  orders  the  tri-colored  cockade  worn,  153. 

Algiers,  naval  force  against,  129,  130 ;  treaty  with,  140. 

Alliance  with  France,  50-1 ;  of  France  and  Spain,  147. 

Alien  and  sedition  laws,  170-72. 

Ambrister  and  Arbuthnot,  trial  and  execution  of,  290-3. 

Amendments  of  constitution,  975  ;  how  made,  973  ;  adoption  of,  108. 

Amistad,  schooner,  capture  of,  trial  of  captives,  723-7 ;  Forsyth  and  the  British 
minister,  727. 

Andros,  Edmund,  colonial  governor  of  New  York,  30. 

Annexation  of  Texas,  (see  Texas). 

Anti-masonry,  rise  and  progress  of,  463-6  ;  candidate  for  president,  564. 

Apportionment  of  representatives,  how  made,  966 ;  bill  for,  vetoed,  93 ;  under 
second  census,  202  ;  under  fifth  census,  563. 

Appropriation  of  three  millions,  attempted,  to  aid  negotiation  with  Mexico,  632-3. 

Archer,  Wm.  S.,  senator,  remarks  on  "  woolens  bill,"  410. 

Arkansas,  territory  of,  formed,  —    ;  state  of,  admitted,  656-61. 

Armistice  with  Great  Britain,  proposed  and  declined,  260-1. 

Atherton,  C.  G.,  resolutions  of,  against  abolition  petitions,  653. 

Attorneys-general,  list  of,  1000. 

Aurora  newspaper,  opposition  of,  to  Washington,  149,  152,  155-6. 

Bache,  B.  F.,  editor  of  Advertiser  newspaper,  115  ;  of  Aurora,  149. 

Badger,  George  E.,  secretary  of  the  navy,  744;  resignation  of,  and  testimony  con- 
cerning Tyler's  veto,  749,  752;  speech  in  senate,  on  Nebraska  bill,  951. 

Bancroft,  George,  secretary  of  the  navy,  832;  minister  to  England, 

Bank  of  the  United  States,  incorporated,  88-91;  new,  proposed,  272 ;  chartered, 
281  ;  affairs  investigated,  304 ;  decided  constitutional,  305,  &c.  ;  Mary- 
land and  Ohio  branches  taxed,  305,  &c. ;  Jackson's  message  on,  600 ; 
M'Duffie's  and  Smith's  reports  on,  500-6 ;  recharter  prayed  for,  and 
reports  on,  vetoed  by  Jackson,  566-7 ;  charges  against,  investigated, 
Adams'  report  on,  569-75;  removal  of  deposits  from,  591-5;  Jackson's 
charges  against,  592 ;  controversy  with  directors,  595-600,  alleged 
reduction  of  loans,  secret  drafts  on,  601  ;  reports  on,  611-12;  dispute' 
concerning  pension  agency ;  nomination  of  directors  rejected,  613-16 
Bills  for,  and  vetoes  of  Tyier,  774-9;  further  account  of,  749-56. 


1006  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN.  ^ 

Bankrupt  and  insolvent  laws,  question  of  constitutionality  decided,  308-9. 

Barbary  powers,  act  to  protect  our  commerce  against,  210. 

Barlow.  Joel,  minister  to  France,  250. 

Barton,  David,  of  Missouri,  senator,  on  removals  from  office,  484-5, 

Barry,  Wm.  T.,  postmaster-general,  and  minister  to  Spain,  548. 

Battle  of  New  Orleans,  picture  of,  proposed,  467. 

Bayard,  James  A.,  and  the  election  of  1801,  192-5 ;  commissioner  to  negotiate 
peace  with  Great  Britain,  264. 

Bell,  John,  of  Tennessee,  speaker  of  the  house,  619;  compromise  resolutions,  903. 

Benton,  Thomas  H.,  of  Missouri,  senator,  report  on  executive  patronage,  re- 
trenchment, &c.,  348-9;  on  Foot's  resolutions,  496;  expunging  resolu- 
tion, 621,  623-7  ;  on  Calhoun's  report  on  executive  patronage  and  dis- 
tribution, 624-5  ;  on  branch  mints,  630  ;  propositions,  for  defense  against 
France,  635  ;  his  account  of  action  on  anti-abolition  bill,  653;  Boonville 
speech  on  annexation  of  Texas,  825-6  ;  on  compromise  of  1850,  896  ;  on 
Texas  boundary,  905. 

Berkeley,  Sir  William,  governor  of  Virginia  colony,  28. 

Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  226-8  ;  conditional  revocation  of,  235  ;  repealed,  258. 

Berrien,  John  M'Pherson,  attorney-general,  477  ;  resignation  of,  548 ;  account 
of  the  cause  of  the  cabinet  rupture,  550-1. 

Beverly  Carter,  letter  accusing  Clay,  394  ;  retracts  the  charge. 

Bibb,  George  M.,  of  Kentucky,  senator,  on  power  of  removal,  485-6. 

Binney,  Horace,  speech  on  removal  of  deposits,  604-6. 

Birney,  James  G.,  nominated  for  president,  735. 

Boston,  riots,  tea  destroyed,  port  bill,  &c.,  43-5. 

Botts,  John  M.,  letter  on  Tyler's  bank  veto,  753. 

Bourbons  restored,  in  France,  267. 

Bradford,  William,  attorney-general,  124  ;  death  of,  140. 

Branch,  John,  secretary  of  the  navy,  477  ;  resignation  of,  and  statement  concern- 
ing cabinet  controversy,  548, 

Brown,  Bedford,  of  N.  C,  senator,  on  Van  Buren's  nomination,  555  ;  on  expung- 
ing resolution,  621. 

Brown,  Wm.  J.,  of  Indiana,  representative,  voted  for  as  speaker,  under  pledge,  893. 

Buchanan,  James,  of  Pa.,  respecting  the  "coalition,"  396,  &c, ;  on  the  woolens 
bill,  409;  on  French  indemnity,  634;  on  postponing  fourth  instalment, 
683  ;  secretary  of  state,  832. 

Burr,  Aaron,  elected  vice-president,  191-2. 

Butler,  Benj.  F.,  attorney-general,  617. 

Butler,  Wm.  0.,  candidate  for  vice-president,  876-8. 

Cabinet  officers,  lists  of,  999,  1000. 

Cabinets,  ruptures  of,  188-9,  (Adams') ;  548,  (Jackson's) ;  749,  (Tyler's). 

Calhoun,  John  C,  war  report,  252;  supports  tariff  of  1816,  280;  controversy  with 
Jackson,  in  relation  to  the  Seminole  war,  536,  &c. ;  reports  a  deposit 
bill,  620;  on  executive  patronage  and  distribution  of  surplus  revenue, 
624 ;  on  French  indemnity,  634 ;  on  postponement  of  fourth  instalment, 
684 ;  on  compromise  of  1850,  896-9 ;  views  on  internal  improvements 
and  protection,  &c.,  991 ;  death  of,  937. 

California,  admission  of,  as  a  state,  902-3-5-12;  Seward's  speech  in  favor  of,  912. 

Callender,  Thomas,  editor  and  publisher  of  "  Prospect  before  us,"  and  "  The  Ex- 
aminer," 185. 

Capitol  at  Washington,  burnt,  268. 

Carolina,  settlement  of,  31. 

Cass,  Lewis,  secretary  of  war,  548  ;  nominated  for  president,  proceedings  of  con- 
vention, 876-7;  letter  to  Nicholson,  881-2;  remarks  on  compromise  of 
1850,  930-37  ;  on  Nebraska  bill,  951-2. 

Caucuses,  congressional,  282,  341 ;  history  of,  342. 

Census,  provision  for  taking,  966 ;  apportionment  of  representatives  under  the 
different  censuses,  1001. 

Charter  governments,  described,  22. 

Chnmbers,  E.  F.,  of  Maryland,  senator,  on  Van  Buren's  nomination,  553. 

Chase,  S.  P.,  of  Ohio,  senator,  on  Nebraska  bill,  944-50. 


INDEX.  1007 

Cherokee  Indians,  controversy  with,  510,  &c. ;  memorial  against  removal,  511 
their  title  dis[)ute(l,  512;  bills  for  their  removal,  and  debate  on,  514-24 
subjected  to  laws  of  Georgia.  525  ;  case  in  the  supreme  court,  526-7 
their  government  annulled  by  Georgia,  missionaries  imprisoned,  555-6 
decision  of  supreme  court,  treaty  for  removal,  557-9. 

Chesapeake,  frigate,  aftair  of,  228-5. 

Choctaw  Indians,  treaty  with,  524. 

Claims  of  states  for  interest  on  moneys  advanced  during  the  war,  561-2 ;  against 
Mexico,  665. 

Clay,  Henry,  commissioner  to  Ghent,  264,  267;  on  bank  of  the  U.  S.,  281;  on 
tariff  of  1824,  323-31 ;  charge  of  coalition  against,  345;  on  Van  Buren's 
nomination,  554  ;  nominated  for  president,  564 ;  resolution  on  removal 
of  deposits,  605 ;  letters  on  annexation,  749-802,  810 ;  nominated  for 
president,  809  ;  resolution  on  compromise  of  1850,  895;  his  death,  937. 

Clayton,  John  M.,  Del.,  on  Van  Buren's  nomination,  554;  secretary  of  state,  892 ; 
motion  of,  to  disallow  foreigners  to  vote  in  Nebraska  and  Kansas,  952. 

Cobbett,  William,  (Peter  Porcupine,)  editor  of  Porcupine's  Gazette,  185, 

Clinton,  George,  54 ;  elected  vice-president,  212  ;  casting  vote  against  bank,  281 ; 

Clinton,  De  Witt,  nominated  for  president,  250 ;  vote  for,  262. 

Coalition,  alleged,  of  Adams  and  Clay,  345,  &c. 

Cockade,  tri-colored,  worn  by  Frenchmen,  153 ;  black,  168. 

Coles,  Edward,  of  Indiana,  publishes  Jefferson's  opinion  of  Adam3  and  Jackson, 
428-9. 

Columbia,  district  of,  ceded  for  a  seat  of  government,  85-6 ;  river,  occupation  of, 
377,  «&c. 

Compromise,  constitutional,  on  slavery,  70,  71 ;  Missouri,  313,  &c. ;  of  1850, 
895-912;  Clay's  resolutions,  895;  Bell's,  903;  remarks  of  Benton,  Cal- 
houn and  Webster,  896-902  ;  bills  passed,  905,  911-12  ;  Benton  on  Texas 
boundary  bill,  905  ;  speeches  of  Seward  and  Cass,  912-37. 

Commerce,  power  of  congress  to  regulate,  969. 

Confederation  of  colonies  in  New  England,  25 ;  government  of,  articles  adopted, 
49  ;  defects  of  52. 

Congress  of  deputies,  in  1765,  '74,  '75,  46;  under  the  confederation,  how  consti- 
tuted, and  powers  of,  48  ;  under  the  constitution,  (see  constitution,  Art.  I.) 

Connecticut,  colony,  settlement  and  government  of,  23-4. 

Constitution,  compromises  of,  70,  71 ;  amendment  of,  77,  108,  210. 

Convention,  constitutional,  preliminary  measures  for,  57  ;  meeting  and  proceed- 
ings of,  60,  &c. 

Congress,  compensation  of  members  of,  282,  1001 ;  state  of  parties  in,  602 ;  con- 
test for  seats  in,  728;  of  Vienna,  representatives  to,  51. 

Craig,  Sir  James  H.,  and  the  British  plot,  248-9. 

Crawford,  Wm.  H.,  on  bank  of  the  United  States,  501 ;  minister  to  France,  264  ; 
secretary  of  war,  March,  1815 ;  secretary  of  the  treasury,  288. 

Creek  Indians,  (see  Indians.) 

Creole  affair,  766-8  ;  resolutions  of  Mr.  Giddings,  768-70. 

Cuthbert,  Alfred,  of  Geo.,  senator,  on  French  indemnity,  624. 

Dallas,  Alexander,  secretary  of  the  treasury,  233  ;  proposes  a  bank,  272 ;  report 
of,  on  tariff,  280. 

Dallas,  Geo.  M.,  senator,  report  of,  on  bank,  566. 

Davie,  Wm.  R.,  envoy  to  France,  179. 

Debts  due  British  subjects,  payment  of,  203. 

Debt,  public,  (see  public  debt.) 

Declaration  of  Independence,  47,  953. 

Decrees,  French,  Berlin  and  Milan,  227-8  j  Rambouillet,  234  ;  repeal  decree,  258. 

Democratic  societies,  116,  135. 

Department  of  the  interior,  established,  891. 

Deposits,  public,  removal  of,  from  bank  of  the  United  States,  591-4;  agency  of 
Amos  Kendall  to  negotiate  with  state  banks,  692 ;  meeting  in  Philadel- 
phia, and  effect  of  removal,  600  ;  debate  on,  in  the  house,  602-6  ;  Clay's 
resolutions,  605-6;  Benton's,  606 ;  president's  protest,  607;  Calhoun's 
bill  to  regulate,  020 ;  bill  to  postpone  fourth  instalment,  682 ;  passed,  688. 


1008  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Dickerson,  Mahlon,  of  N.  J.,  senator,  plan  of,  to  distribute  proceeds  of  land  sales, 

4V2-4 ;  secretary  of  the  navy,  617. 
Distribution  of  proceeds  of  land  sales,  Dickerson's  plan,  472-4  ;  report  on,  in  the 

house,  475;  Clay's  report  and  bill,  559-60;    passed  and  vetoed,  587  ; 

new  bill,  589 ;  bill  vetoed  by  Tyler,  784. 
Disunion,  attempt  at,  charged,  459 ;  prayed  for,  756,  766. 
Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  reports  Nebraska  bill,  speech  on,  941-4. 
Duane,  James,  editor  of  Aurora,  (successor  to  Bache,)  185. 
Duane,  Wm.  J.,  secretary  of  the  treasury,  592 ;  refuses  to  remove  deposits,  and  is 

removed,  594. 
Duties,  act  to  lay,  1788,  75-6  ;  increased,  86-7, 94 ;  internal  duties  repealed,  203 ; 

act  imposing  internal  duties,  264-5. 

Eaton,  John  H.,  of  Tennessee,  secretary  of  wslt,  477  ;  resignation  of,  correspond- 
ence with  Ingham,  and  challenge,  ''^48-9. 

Electors  of  president,  how  chosen,  (see  constitution)  ;  when  and  where  give  their 
votes ;  law  for  a  uniform  time  of  electing,  831. 

Ellmaker,  Amos,  of  Pa.,  anti-masonic  candidate  for  vice-president,  564. 

Ellsworth,  Oliver,  envoy  of  France,  179;  chief  justice  to  the  supreme  court,  1000. 

Embargo  act  of  1807,  228  ;  effects  of,  232;  act  of  1812,  250;  another,  265-6;  re- 
pealed, 266. 

Ewing,  Thomas,  secretary  of  the  treasury,  744  ;  resignation  of,  749  ;  secretary  of 
the  interior,  892. 

Executive  department,  plans  of,  proposed  in  convention,  71,  72. 

Executive  patronage,  Benton's  report  on,  348-9  ;  Calhoun's,  and  debate  on,  624-9. 

Expunging  resolution  of  Benton,  621-2. 

Fenno,  editor  of  United  States  Gazette,  97. 

Fillmore,  Millard,  elected  vice-president,  882 ;  becomes  president,  his  cabinet,  910. 

Florida  war,  289,  &c.  (see  Seminole  war.) 

Florida,  state  of,  admitted  into  the  union,  831. 

Foot,  Samuel  A.,  of  Conn.,  rQ3olutions  of,  on  the  public  lands,  487;  resolutions 
debated,  by  Hayne  and  Webster,  488-96  ;  remarks  of  Benton,  Rowan, 
Grundy,  Woodbury,  Livingston,  Smith,  496-500. 

Foote,  Henry  S.,  of  Miss.,  proposes  territorial  governments,  894. 

Forsyth,  John,  of  Geo.,  on  Indian  bill,  517-21 ;  secretary  of  state,  017. 

Fortification  bill,  with  the  three  million  amendment,  635-40. 

France,  treaty  of  alliance  with,  50;  revolution  in,  our  relations  with,  109-10; 
Genet,  the  French  minister,  112-18;  G.  Morris,  minister  to,  recalled,  and 
Monroe  appointed,  119  ;  colors  of,  presented,  141  ;  dissatisfied  with  Jay 
treaty,  146;  unlawful  decree  of,  160;  envoys  to,  novel  negotiation,  non- 
intercourse  act  against,  161-5;  negotiation  with,  resumed,  178;  govern- 
ment of,  again  changed,  181 ;  aggressions  of,  216-18  ;  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees,  226-8;  Rambouillet  decree,  234;  conditional  repeal  of  decrees, 
235;  continues  restrictions,  241-2;  decrees  repealed,  258-9 ;  Bourbons 
restored,  267  ;  refuses  to  pay  the  stipulated  indemnity,  630-2 ;  reprisals 
suggested  by  the  president,  630;  and  retaliation,  633  ;  debate  in  senate, 
634-5  ;  payment  of  indemnity,  640. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  deputed  to  England  with  petitions,  39  ;  commissioner  to  treat 
of  peace,  51-2. 

Freneau,  Philip,  editor  of  National  Gazette,  97,  105,  115. 

Frelinghuysen,  Theodore,  of  N.  J.,  on  Indian  bill,  514-15-17 ;  candidate  for  vice- 
president,  809. 

French  spoliation  bill,  623. 

Fries,  opposes  tax  law  in  Pennsylvania,  186-7. 

Funding  public  debt  by  continental  congress,  defeated,  53  ;  (see  public  debt.) 

Fugitive  slaves,  in  Canada,  attempt  to  effect  their  surrender,  468  ;  law  of  1860, 
for  the  capture  of,  912. 

Gallatin,  Albert,  secretary  of  the  treasury,  198  ;  commissioner  to  Ghent,  264,  267 ; 
minister  to  England,  384  ;  reports  in  favor  of  a  bank,  281 ;  favors  re- 
newal, 501. 


APPENDIX.  1009 

Genet,  Edmund  C,  French  minister,  arrival  of,  conduct,  and  recall,  112-119. 

Georgia,  act  to  settle  limits  with,  169  ;  controversy  Avith,  about  the  Creeks,  361- 
374  ;  and  the  Cherokees,  511,  &c, 

Gerry,  Elbridge,  joint  envoy  to  France,  162  ;  vice-president,  262. 

Giddings,  Joshua  R.,  of  Ohio,  presents  petition  for  division  of  the  union,  766; 
resolutions  of,  relating  to  the  Creole  affair,  768-70;  is  censured,  resigns, 
and  is  re-elected,  768-70;  on  Oregon  question,  in  favor  of"  notice,"  859. 

Giles,  Wm.  B.,  of  Virginia,  controversy  witli  Adams,  429-41, 

Goodrich,  Elizur,  removal  of,  by  Jefferson,  199, 

Gordon,  Wm.  F.,  of  Virginia,  proposes  sub-treasury,  620. 

Gould,  Judge,  of  Conn.,  publishes  testimony  against  Adams,  456-8. 

Graham,  Wm.  A.,  of  N.  C,  secretary  of  the  navy,  910;  candidate  for  vice-presi- 
dent, 938. 

Granger,  Gideon,  letter  of  Jefferson  to,  201;  postmaster-general,  198. 

Granger,  Francis,  candidate  for  lieutenant-governor  of  New  York,  and  for  gov- 
enor,  465  ;  for  vice-president,  677  ;  postmaster-general,  744. 

Great  Britain,  instructions  of,  on  trade  with  the  colonies,  35 ;  attempts  to  con- 
ciliate, difficulties  with,  50,  55 ;  policy  of,  120 ;  treaty  with,  137 ;  ag- 
gressions and  new  principles  of,  216-18 ;  treaty  with,  rejected,  221 ; 
orders  in  council,  226-8  ;  negotiation  with,  (Erskinc  and  Jackson,)  233- 
4  ;  war  declared  against,  264  ;  orders  in  council  revoked^  259  ;  negotia- 
tion of  peace,  264,  267;  treaty  with,  300 ;  claims  of,  on  Pacific,  377; 
West  India  trade,  382,  &c.  ;  navigation  of  St.  Lawrence,  386-90 ;  north- 
eastern boundary,  386,  784-6. 

Grundy,  Felix,  of  Tennessee,  on  Foot's  resolution,  498. 

Gunboats,  Jefferson's  plan  of  naval  defense,  212,  213, 

Habersham,  Joseph,  postmaster-general,  136, 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  on  removal  from  office,  76;  secretary  of  the  treasury,  77; 
his  character  and  Jefferson's  described,  95-6  ;  controversy  with  Jeffer- 
son, 97-101;  letter  to  Washington,  102-3;  charges  against,  107,  133; 
report  on  public  debt,  and  resignation,  136 ;  opposes  Adams,  180,  189, 
and  Burr,  191. 

Harbor  bill  defeated  by  the  president's  not  returning  it,  561. 

Harrison,  Wm.  H.,  delegate  from  north-western  territory,  188 ;  nominated  and 
elected  president,  735-8  ;  his  inauguration  and  cabinet,  740-4 ;  convenes 
congress,  and  dies,  744, 

Hartford  convention,  history  of,  269-72. 

Harvey,  Sir  John,  governor  of  Virginia  colony,  27. 

Haywood,  Wm.  H.,  of  N.  C,  instructed,  and  resigns,  873. 

Henry,  John,  agent  in  the  British  plot,  248-9, 

Henry,  Patrick,  envoy  to  France,  (declined,)  179. 

Hill,  Isaac,  on  branch  mints,  629. 

Holland,  dissatisfied  with  the  Jay  treaty,  147, 

Holmes,  John,  of  Maine,  on  Van  Buren's  nomination,  653, 

Houston,  Samuel,  speech  of,  on  Nebraska  bill,  950. 

Impressment  of  American  seamen  by  Great  Britain,  218,  261. 

Independence  declared,  47  ;  declaration  of,  953. 

Indiana,  territory  formed,  188;  attempt  to  introduce  slavery  in,  209-10;  divided, 

213  ;  admission  of,  as  a  state,  282-3  ;  claims  the  public  lands  within  her 

limits,  474. 
Indians,  north-western,  war  with,  94 ;   treaty  with,  140 ;    Creeks  and  Georgia, 

361-74  ;  Jackson's  policy  in  relation  to,  510,  &c. ;  bill  for  removal  of, 

514,524;  Cherokee  memorial,  525;  case  in  supreme  court,  527;  last 

controversy,  555. 
Ingersoll,  Jarcd,  voted  for  as  vice-president,  262. 
Ingham,  Samuel  D.,  secretary  of  state,  resignation,  «fec.,  548-52. 
Insolvent  and  bankrupt  laws,  decision  on,  308, 
Interior,  department  of,  established,  891. 

G4 


1010  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

Internal  improvement,  bill  passed  and  vetoed,  283-4 ;  another  bill  vetoed,  309; 
Cumberland  road  bill,  vetoed,  311-12  ;  Maysville,  and  the  Washington 
road  bills  vetoed,  Hemphill's  report  on  vetoes,  506,  508 ;  improvement 
and  harbor  bills  vetoed,  561. 

Iowa,  admitted  as  a  state,  831. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  establishes  martial  law  at  New  Orleans,  277-9 ;  correspondence 
with  Monroe,  284-8;  conduct  in  Florida  war  investigated,  and  his  de- 
fense, 293-8  ;  nominated  for  president  by  Tennessee  legislature,  and  con- 
demns appointment  of  members  of  congress,  391-2 ;  accuses  Clay  and 
Adams,  393 ;  letters  to  Indiana  legislature  and  Doctor  Coleman,  on 
tariff  and  internal  improvement,  401-3  ;  elected  president,  469-70;  inau- 
guration and  cabinet,  477;  controversy  with  Calhoun,  536,  &c.  ;  dissolu- 
tion of  his  cabinet,  548  ;  re-elected  president,  564-5  ;  vetoes  bank  bill, 
567 ;  protest  against  Clay's  resolution,  607 ;  asks  for  reprisals  against 
France,  033  ;  death  of,  832. 

Jay,  John,  minister  to  Spain,  51  ;  secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  56 ;  minister  to 
Great  Britain,  132-4 ;  concludes  treaty,  137.  (See  Great  Britain  and 
treaties.) 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  minister  to  France,  56 ;  secretary  of  state,  77  ;  his  and  Hamil- 
ton's characters  described,  96-7  ;  controversy  between,  95-101 ;  letter  to 
Washington,  104;  his  commercial  report,  and  resignation,  122-4;  letter 
to  Mazzei,  150 ;  requests  Madison  to  oppose  Adams,  167-8 ;  elected 
president,  191-2;  inauguration,  198;  cabinet,  appointments  and  re- 
movals, 198-202 ;  re-elected,  212,  and  inaugurated,  214 ;  opinions  of 
Adams  and  Jackson,  428,  &c. 

Johnson,  Cave,  postmaster-general,  832. 

Johnson,  Richard  M.,  report  of,  on  Jackson's  case,  293  ;  mediation  and  testimony 
in  cabinet  difficulty,  550-2. 

Judicial  act,  new,  (Adams'),  and  repealed,  190. 

Judiciary  act  of  1789,  77  ;  assailed,  582-3. 

Kendall,  Amos,  agent  to  select  state  banks  to  receive  deposits,  592. 

Kentucky,  admitted  as  a  state,  92;  resolutions  of  1799,  172-6. 

King,  Rufus,  succeeded  by  Monroe,  at  London,  208 ;  proposes  anti-slavery  pro- 
viso for  north-western  territory,  58 ;  resolution  of,  proposing  to  colonize 
the  free  negroes,  368. 

King,  Wm.  R.,  of  Ala.,  president  of  senate,  pro.  tern.,  910;  vice-president,  937. 

Knox,  Henry,  secretary  of  war,  77  ;  resignation  of,  136. 

Lands,  western,  ceded  to  general  government,  57,  85  ;  public,  (see  public  lands.) 

Laurens,  Henry,  commissioner  to  treat  with  Great  Britain,  52. 

Laws,  change  of  publishers  of,  381. 

Lee,  Charles,  of  Va.,  attorney-general,  140. 

Leigh,  Benj.  W.,  of  Va.,  sent  as  mediator  to  S.  Carolina,  583;  on  expunging  reso- 
lutions, 622  ;  on  distribution,  625. 

Lexington  and  Concord,  battle  of,  46. 

Little  Democrat,  and  Genet,  117. 

Livingston,  Edward,  on  Foot's  resolution,  (powers  of  government,)  498-9;  secre- 
tary of  state,  548;  minister  to  France,  592;  letter  about  Stevenson's 
mission,  617-8  ;  correspondence  with  duke  de  Broglie,  and  returns  from 
France,  682. 

Livingston,  Robert  R.,  minister  to  France,  and  joint  negotiator  for  Louisiana,  204. 

Louisiana,  purchase  of,  203-8;  division  and  boundary  of,  209-11;  territorial  gov- 
ernment of,  established,  214. 

Madison,  James,  in  constitutional  convention,  03,  70,  71,  72,  74;  on  funding 
debt,  80 ;  on  bank,  90,  501-2 ;  commercial  resolutions  of,  124 ;  his 
speech  on,  126-8 ;  president,  233  ;  his  war  spirit  questioned,  249-50; 
re-nominated,  250,  and  re-elected,  262;  letters  on  the  constitutionality 
and  expediency  of  protection,  978-81 ;  views  of  nullification,  981 ;  on 
the  nature  of  the  union,  982  ;  on  the  binding  influence  of  judicial  de- 
cisions, and  the  constitutionality  of  the  bank,  984-6  ;  death  of,  650. 


INDEX.  1011 

Maine,  admitted  as  a  state,  316-17. 

Mallary,  Kolliu  C,  on  woolens  bill,  405-6. 

Manufactures,  prohibited  in  colonies,  36  ;  encouraged  by  Washington,  153  ;  Jef- 
ferson, 198,  868  ;  Madison,  124, 126-7,  978-81 ;  Monroe,  284  ;  Jackson.  402-3  : 
868-9. 

Marcy,  Wni.  L.,  on  Van  Buren's  nomination,  553-4;  seci'ctary  of  war,  832;  secre- 
tary of  state,  999. 

Markley,  testimony  of,  respecting  the  coalition,  396. 

Marshall,  John,  joint  envoy  to  France,  162  ;  secretary  of  state,  188 ; .  chief  justice 
of  supreme  court,  1000. 

Martial  law,  at  New  Oileans,  277-9. 

Mason,  John  Y,,  attorney-general,  832. 

Massachusetts,  colony,  settlement  and  government  of,  23. 

Massachusetts,  state,  and  Connecticut,  controversy  with  general  government  dur- 
ing the  war  of  1812,  263. 

Maryland,  colony,  settlement  and  government  of,  30. 

Mazzei,  Jefferson's  letter  to,  150. 

M'Dulfie,  George,  report  of,  on  bank,  500,  &c.  ;  on  protection,  509-10 ;  on  bank. 
506;  on  removal  of  deposits,  602;  on  the  power  of  congress  relating  to 
internal  improvements  and  protection,  990-1. 

M'Lane,  on  woolens  bill,  406 ;  minister  to  Great  Britain,  481  ;  negotiates  West 
India  trade,  528-30  ;  secretary  of  treasury,  548 ;  secretary  of  state,  592  ; 
resigns,  617  ;  minister  to  England,  832. 

M'Lean,  John,  postmaster-general,  1000;  justice  of  supreme  court,  477  ;  declines 
candidacy  for  president,  564. 

Mediation,  offered  by  Spain,  50;  by  Russia,  264,  267  ;  by  Great  Britain,  639-40. 

Mediterranean  fund,  210,  220. 

Members  of  congress,  appointment  of,  condemned  by  Jackson,  392  ;  number  ap- 
pointed, 480;  rule  of  apportionment  of,  966  ;  compensation  of,  1001. 

Mexico,  claims  against,  default  in  payment  of,  738;  minister  from,  protests 
against  annexation  of  Texas,  and  departs,  offers  conditionally  to  recog- 
nize ind.  of  Texas,  833  ;  is  delinquent  on  indemnity  ;  Slidell  sent  to  ne- 
gotiate, and  returns,  834-5  ;  war  against,  announced,  G.  Davis'  speech, 
proposals  to  negotiate,  and  two  million  project,  836-7  ;  war  with,  affects 
Great  Britain,  Polk's  message,  and  Santa  Anna's  treaty,  840;  treaty 
with,  848.     (See  war  with  Mexico.) 

Michigan,  territory  formed,  213  ;  state  of,  admitted,  656-61. 

Military  academy  at  West  Point  established,  202. 

Militia-men,  execution  of,  by  Jackson,  467. 

Mint,  branches  of,  established  ;  Hill  and  Benton  on,  629-30. 

Mississippi  river,  navigation  of,  52,  140. 

Mississippi  territory,  government  provided  for,  169. 

Mississippi,  state  of,  admitted,  283. 

Missouri  territory,  (till  then  called  Louisiana,)  government  provided  for,  in  1812; 
application  for  admission ;  compromise,  313,  &c. ;  admitted  as  a  state, 
319. 

Monroe,  James,  minister  to  France,  119;  recalled,  148;  joint  negotiation  for 
Louisiana,  206;  minister  to  England,  208;  with  Pinkney  negotiates 
treaty,  221-2 ;  discussion  with  Foster,  235-40;  nominated  for  president, 
282  ;  election  and  inaugural  of,  284  ;  correspondence  with  Jackson, 
285-8;  northern  tour,  289.     Died,  July  4,  1831. 

Morgan,  William,  abduction  of,  463.  , 

Morris,  Gouverneur,  member  of  constitutional  convention,  67  ;  minister  to  France, 
recalled,  119. 

Murray,  William  Vans,  minister  to  Netherlands,  160  ;  envoy  to  France,  179. 

Nashville  convention,  proposed,  827-8. 

National  Intelligencer  established,  179. 

Naturalization  acts,  203. 

Navigation  acts  of  Great  Britain,  35  ;  of  U.  S.,  75,  283. 

Navy,  encouraged  by  Washington,  153  ;  department  established,  166. 

Nebraska  and  Kansas  territories  formed;  bills  for,  debated,  and  passed,  942  52. 


1012  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMAN. 

New  Hampshire,  colony  of,  settled,  23. 

New  Jersey,  colony,  settlement  of,  32. 

New  York,  colony,  settlement  of,  29. 

Neutrality  acts,  133,  283. 

Neutral  rights,  doctrines  of  France,  concerning,  252-3.         .      .  ,  ^  „ 

New  Mexico,  prays  against  being  included  in  Texas,  temtonal  government  for, 
905  ;  bill  passed,  911. 

Non-importing  association,  41-2.  ooo  k 

Non-intercourse  with  St.  Domingo,  220  ;  with  Great  Britam  and  France,  232-5  ; 
repealed,  266. 

North-eastern  boundary,  attempt  to  settle  by  arbitration,  286;  settled,  784-b. 

Nullification,  advocated  by  senator  Hayne  and  others.  (See  debate  on  Foot  s  re- 
solutions, and  South  Carolina ;  also,  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions.) 

Ohio,  state  of,  admitted,  203. 

Orders  in  council,  British,  226-8 ;  revoked,  259, 

Ordinance  of  1787,  58-9.  .       o-,a 

Orec^on,  occupation  of,  377,  &c. ;  right  to,  asserted  by  democratic  convention,  »1U- 
11  ;  bill  for  giving  notice  to  Great  Britain,  lost,  815-16  ;  negotiation,  and 
position  of  the  administration,  849-50;  compromise  offered  and  declined, 
850-1 ;  resolutions  to  terminate  joint  occupancy,  851-2  ;  course  of  Adams, 
Giddings,  and  other  whigs,  852-60 ;  resolution  to  give  notice  passed,  860  ; 
failure  of  the  attempt  to  mediate,  announced,  760-1 ;  debate  on  title,  m 
the  senate,  863-5 ;  government  for,  Dix  and  Calhoun,  Clayton's  bill,  a 
bill  passed,  884-8 ;  other  territorial  bills,  again  lost,  888-9. 

Orleans  territory  formed,  importation  of  slaves  prohibited,  209 ;  government  of, 
213. 

Panama  mission,  352,  &c. 

Parties  in  convention,  federalists  and  anti-federalists,  73. 
Patterson,  William,  in  convention,  plan  of,  for  constitution,  62. 
Patriot    war,  712;    Caroline  affair.  Van  Buren's  proclamation,  713-14 ;  trial  of 
M'Kenzie  and  Van  Rensselaer,  714-15  ;  trial  of  M'Leod,  715,  and  acquit- 
ted, 722  ;  case  before  congress,  117-22. 
Peace  with  Great  Britain,  52 ;  negotiation  for,  at  Ghent,  264,  267 ;  concluded, 

274-7. 
Peck,  James  H.,  judge,  impeachment  and  trial  of,  533-4. 
Pennsylvania,  settled  by  Wm.  Penn,  32. 
Pensacola,  and  St.  Marks,  taken  by  Jackson,  290-2. 
Pickering,  Timothy,  secretary  of  war,  136  ;  secretary  of  state,  140. 
Picture  of  battle  of  New  Orleans,  proposed,  467. 
Pierce,  Franklin,  nomination  of,  for  president,  937  ;  election  of,  and  inauguration, 

939-40;  message  to  congress,  940-1. 
Pinckney,  C.  C,  minister  to  France,  148, 162;  reception  refused,  155;  candidate 

for  president,  191. 
Pinckney,  Thomas,  at  London,  succeeded  by  Rufus  King,  146. 
Pinkney,  William,  and  Monroe,  treat  with  Great  Britain,  221-2. 
Platforms  of  parties  in  1852,  938-9. 

Plumer,  Wm.,  of  N.  H.,  testimony  in  favor  of  Adams,  455. 

Polk,  James  K.,  on  removal  of  deposits,  603-4;  speaker,  754;    nominated  for 
president,  800 ;  protest  and  confidential  circular  against,  811 ;  election 
of,  814 ;  his  inauguration  and  cabinet,  831-2 ;  announces  war,  836. 
Porter,  Peter  B.,  reports  in  favor  of  increasing  means  of  defense,  249. 
Postage,  law,  to  reduce,  831. 

Post  office  investigation,  531 ;  abuses  in.  detected,  615-16. 
Poindexter,  George,  of  Miss.,  on  president's  protest,  608  ;  resolutions  of,  610;  on 

expunging  the  journal,  621. 
President,  how  elected,  975-6  ;  plan  for  choosing  electors  of,  970;  his  powers  and 

duties,  971-2. 
Princeton,  war  vessel,  explosion  of,  killing  secretaries  Upshur  and  Gilmer,  799. 
Proprietary  government,  30. 
Protests  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  against  tariff,  470-1. 


INDEX.  1013 

Provincial,  or  royal  governments,  26. 

Public  debt,  attempt  to  fund,  52  ;  amount,  and  funding  of,  78-85;  of  states,  as- 
sumed, 86  ;  Hamilton's  report  on,  and  act,  136  ;  sinking  fund,  283. 

Public  lands,  distribution  of,  proceeds  of,  472,  474-5;  subject  of,  referred  to  com- 
mittee on  manufactures,  and  reported  on,  559-60;  act  to  distribute  pro- 
ceeds of,  757.     (See  articles  revenue  and  distribution.) 

Publishers  of  laws,  change  of,  under  Adams,  381. 

Puritan,  origin  of  name,  22. 

Rambouillet,  decree,  (French,)  234. 

Randolph,  Edmund,  in  convention,  proposes   a  plan  for  a  constitution,  60-2; 

attorney-general,  77  ;  secretary  of  state,  124. 
Randolph,  John,  minister  to  Russia,  530-1. 
Ratification  of  the  constitution,  75. 

Reform  and  retrenchment,  (see  retrenchment  and  reform). 
Removals  from  (ffiice,  power  of,  76;  by  Jefferson,  1.98-202;  by  Jackson,  478-9; 

extent  and  power  of,  480-484 ;    speeches  by  Webster  and  White   on, 
,  627-9. 
Representation  and  slavery,  966;  debate  on,  in  convention,  64-71. 
Representatives,  apportionment  of,  98,  202,  563-4. 
Resolutions,  of  Clay,  on  removal  of  deposits,  605  ;  of  Poindexter  on  protest,  610; 

Virginia  and  Kentucky  in  1798,  and  1799,  172,  &c. 
Revenue,  power  of  congress  to  provide,  968  ;  bill  to  insure  collection  of,  509 ; 

surplus,  distribution  of,  recommended  by  Jackson,  482 ;    Dickerson's 

plan,  472  ;  new  plan  to  distribute,  adopted,  654-6. 
Rhode  Island,  settlement  of,  24. 

Ritchie,  Thomas,  letter  of,  concerning  Stevenson's  appointment,  618. 
Right  of  instruction,  Clay's  remarks  on,  347.     (See  Note  I.,  Appendix.) 
Roger  Williams,  settles  in  Rhode  Island,  24. 
Rose,  British  minister,  224-5. 

Rowan,  of  Ky.,  on  Foot's  resolution,  (powers  of  government,)  496-7. 
Royal  or  provincial  governments,  described,  26. 
Russia,  claims  of,  on  the  Pacific,  374 ;  treaty  with,  876. 

Santa  Anna,  treaty  with  Texas,  840;  permitted  by  Polk  to  pass  the  blockade;  re- 
sumes military  command,  and  presidency,  841. 

Scott,  Winfield,  nominated  for  president,  938. 

Seamen,  disabled,  act  for  relief  of,  169;  impressment  of,  (see  impressment). 

Seat  of  government,  established,  85-6. 

Sedition  and  alien  laws,  170-7. 

Seminole  war,  289,  &c. ;  second  war,  inquiry  into,  proposed,  688 ;  bloodhounds 
employed,  plan  to  extirpate  the  Indians,  war  terminated,  733-4, 

Sergeant,  John,  candidate  for  vice-president,  564. 

Sinking  fund,  appropriation  for,  203 ;  established,  283. 

Slavery,  and  representation,  debate  on,  in  convention,  64-71 ;  provision  for,  966. 

Slavery,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  petition  of  citizens  of,  to  abolish,  468-9. 
(See  abolition.) 

Slave  trade,  prohibited,  225-6  ;  in  District  of  Columbia,  912.  T 

Slaves,  fugitive,  in  Canada,  attempt  to  procure  their  surrender  by  Great  Britain, 
468. 

Slidell,  John,  minister  to  Mexico,  not  received,  834-5. 

Smith,  Robert,  of  Md.,  secretary  of  state,  233  ;  resigns,  his  expose  of  administra- 
tion in  controversy  with  France  and  England,  243-7. 

Smith,  Samuel,  of  Md.,on  Van  Buren's  nomination,  553. 

Smith,  Wm.,  of  S.  C,  speech  of,  on  Madison's  resolutions,  124-6. 

Southard,  Samuel  L.,  on  expunging  resolution,  622. 

Soiith  Carolina,  prepares  to  resist  the  collection  of  duties,  566-7;  Jackson's  pro- 
clamation, 577-81 ;  act  of  resistance  passed,  and  military  preparations, 
582 ;  Virginia  mediates,  583-5-6. 

Spain,  offers  to  mediate  between  U.  S.  and  Great  Britain,  50;  declines  proposals 

:..;.:   ,  for  treaty,  51 ;  boundary  dispute  with,  56;   treaty  with,  140  ;  dissatisfied 

with  Jay's  treaty,  147,  and  with  the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  209. 


1014  THE    AMERICAN    STATESMiiN. 

Spain,  refuses  to  ratify  a  treaty  of  indemnity,  210 ;  consents  to  the  transfer  of 
Louisiana,  211  ;  aggressions  of,  216;  negotiations  with,  221;  treaties 
with,  299-301;  ratification  of,  delayed,  302-3. 

Speaker  of  tiie  house,  long  contest  for,  893,  &c. ;  suspension  of,  272  ;  resumed, 
282. 

Specie  circular  of  1838,  666;  Ewing's  motion  to  rescind,  debate  on,  bill  passed, 
and  vetoed,  068-72  ;  repealed,  702. 

Spoliations,  French,  bill  to  pay  claims  for,  623 ;  Adams'  proposition,  respecting 
the  delay  of  France  to  pay  indemnity,  631. 

Sprague,  Pelcg,  of  Maine,  speech  on  Indian  bill,  521-6. 

Stamp  act,  37,  161. 

State  governments,  during  the  revolution,  49. 

St.  Clair,  Gen.,  defeat  of,  by  western  Indians,  94. 

St.  Domingo,  non-intercourso  with,  220. 

St.  Marks  and  Pensacola,  taken  by  Jackson,  290-2. 

Stevenson,  Andrew,  speaker  of  the  house,  1001 ;  rejected  as  minister  to  England, 
,      617-18. 

Stewart,  Andrew,  S])eech  of,  on  woolens  bill,  407  ;  on  tariff  of  1846,  868-71. 

Stoddart,  Benj.,  of  Md.,  secretary  of  the  navy,  160. 

Sub-treasury,  origin  of,  620 ;  recommended  by  Van  Buren,  679  ;  debated  and 
lost,  again  defeated,  689;  speeches  of  Tallmadge,  Calhoun,  Clay,  and 
Webster,  690-702 ;  established,  732  ;  act  repealed,  747 ;  re-established, 
874. 

Suppressed  documents,  in  relation  to  the  controversy  with  France  and  England, 
229-31. 

Supreme  court,  opinion  of,  on  bank  question,  305,  &c. ;  on  insolvent  and  bank- 
rupt laws,  308;  in  case  of  the  Cherokees,  557  ;  in  case  of  Amistad  cap- 
tives, 727. 

Taxation,  right  of,  claimed  by  Great  Britain,  33,  39  ;  John  Adams'  sentiments  on, 
34  ;  stamp  act,  glass,  paper,  &c.,  taxed,  and  acts  resisted,  37-41 ;  tax 
law  of  congress  opposed  in  Pennsylvania,  186-7. 

Talleyrand,  French  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  162,  164-5. 

Taney,  Roger  B.,  attorney-general,  548  ;  appointed  secretary  of  the  treasury,  and 
removes  the  deposits,  594;  nomination  of,  rejected,  617. 

Tariff  of  1816,  279-81  ;  vote  on  bill  of  1820,  321-3;  of  1824,  proceedings  on  322- 
40;  Clay's  speech,  323,  &c. ;  Webster's,  against,  331,  &c. ;  Philadelphia 
meeting,  on  defeat  of  woolens  bill,  412  ;  Harrisburg  convention,  412-14 ; 
of  1828,  414-18;  southern  feeling,  419-20;  attempt  at  the  session  of 
1830-1 ;  to  revise,  534-6 ;  of  1832,  reports  on,  bills,  and  passage  of, 
562-3  ;  Verplank's  bill,  and  Clay's  compromise,  of  1832-3,  583-7 ;  bills 
and  reports  in  1842,  of  committee  on  manufactures,  and  of  secretary 
of  the  treasury,  770-9  ;  distribution  proviso,  779;  bill  vetoed.  780;  re- 
port of  com.  of  thirteen,  bill  passed  and  approved,  782-3 ;  attempt  to 
repeal,  828 ;  prices  of  goods  at  Richmond,  829  ;  attacked  in  1846,  by  the 
president  and  secretary  of  the  treasury,  865-8;  Stewart's  reply,  868 ; 
bill  reported,  amended,  passed,  871-3. 

Tassels,  George,  an  Indian,  execution  of,  527. 

Taylor,  General,  locates  army  at  Corpus  Cristi;  is  ordered  to  the  Rio  Grande, 
835  ;  named  for  president,  nominated,  proceedings  of  convention,  874-9  ; 
letter  to  Alison,  879  ;  disaffection  of  the  whigs  ;  Buffalo  convention,  880-1 ; 
letters  of  Albany  meeting,  election,  882-3 ;  inauguration^  and  cabinet, 
892  ;  message  to  congress,  894  ;  his  death,  910. 

Territory  acquired  from  Mexico,  propositions  for  government  of,  894,  &c. ;  Bell's 
resolutions,  committee  of  thirteen,  report  of,  943-4, 

Texas,  independence  of,  recognized,  662-5 ;  Preston's  resolutions  for  annexation, 
and  speech,  703-4  ;  Adams'  speech,  709-11 ;  proposition  to  annex,  with- 
drawn, 712;  annexation  of,  revived;  treaty  concluded,  and  rejected, 
786-90  ;  Benton's  resolution,  and  debate  on,  790-8  ;  president  appeals  to 
the  house,  798  ;  letter  of  Clay  on  annexation  of,  799-802 ;  letter  of  Van 
Buren,  803-8;  propositions  for  annexation,  and  a  bill  passed,  816-21 ; 
discussion,  821-7  ;    Nashville  convention  proposed,  827-8. 


INDEX.  1015 

Texas,  annexation  oiTected,  830 ;  protest  of  Mexican  minister,  833 ;  Benton  on 
Texas  and  New  Mexico  Louudary  bill,  905-9 ;  controversy  with  Texas  • 
boundary  bill  passed,  911.  ' 

Treasury  circular,  (see  specie  circular,)  issue  of,  authorized,  684-7,  739,  841. 

Treaty,  with  Great  Britain,  (Jay's,)  137  ;  call  of  the  house  for  correspondence,  and 
refused  by  the  president,  142-3  ;  treaty  negotiated  by  Pinkney  and  Mon- 
roe, and  rejected,  221-2. 

Tripoli,  relations  with,  202. 

Tyler,  John,  report  of,  on  charges  against  the  bank,  619-20 ;  on  French  spolia- 
tion bill,  623 ;  jiominated  vice-president,  735  ;  his  political  opinions, 
737;  election,  738;  becomes  president,  745;  vetoes  bank  bills,  748-9' 
resignation  and  statements  of  his  secretaries;  749-52  ;  new  cabinet,  754  • 
vetoes  tariff  bill,  780. 

Union,  dissolution  of,  prayed  for,  756 ;  attempt  to  censure  Adams,  757-66 ;  Gid- 

dings  presents  a  similar  petition,  766. 
United  States  Gazette,  Fenno's,  97 ;  Fenno's  deith,  185. 
Upshur,  Abel  P.,   secretary  of  the  navy,  754;  of  state,  999;  correspondence  of, 

relating  to  annexation,  787-8 ;  death  of,  799. 
Utah,  territory,  government  for,  established,  904. 

Vail,  Aaron,  charge  of  affairs  in  England,  617. 

Van  Buren,  secretary  of  state,  477;  resigns,  548;  appointed  minister  to  England, 
552 ;  nominated  and  rejected,  553 ;  nominated  for  vice-president,  564 ; 
and  elected,  565 ;  casting  vote  of,  on  bill  against  mailing  anti-slavery 
papers,  653  ;  elected  president,  his  inauguration,  676-7  ;  money  pressure, 
bank  suspension,  678 ;  convenes  congress,  recommends  sub-treasury, 
679;  sundry  bills  reported,  fourth  instalment  of  surplus  revenue  to  be 
withheld,  680;  sub-treasury  bill  lost,  687,  and  again,  689;  (see  sub- 
treasury;)  renominated,  735;  letter  on  annexation,  8,03-8;  nomination 
by  Utica  and  Buffalo  conventions,  881, 

Veto,  power  of,  968  ;  applied  to  bank  bill,  273,  (Madison) ;  internal  improvement 
bills,  284,  309,  311,  (Madison  and  Moiu'oe) ;  Maysville  and  Washington 
road  bills,  506,  508,  (Jackson);  bank  and  land  bills,  567,  5S7,  (Jack- 
son) ;  bank  bills,  748-9,  (Tyler) ;  tariff  bills,  and  debate  on,  780,  782, 
(Tyler) ;  distribution  bill,  by  retaining  it,  784. 

Vienna,  congress  of,  51. 

Virginia,  settlement  and  government  of,  26 ;  resolutions  of  1798,  172-6. 

Walker,  Robert  J.,  of  Miss.,  secretary  of  the  treasury,  832;  report  of,  on  tariff 
in  1846. 

War,  with  Indians,  defeat  of  St.  Clair,  94 ;  war  of  revolution,  causes  of,  33,  &c. ; 
Madison's  war  message  of  1812,  251 ;  war  report,  252 ;  declaration  of, 
254 ;  address  of  minority  of  congress,  254-8  ;  (see  Seminole  war,  Florida 
war,  and  patriot  war ;)  with  Mexico,  act  authorizing  loans  and  treasury 
notes,  841-2  ;  debate  on  three  million  bill,  and  the  objects  and  origin  of 
the  war,  by  Calhoun,  Benton,  and  Clayton,  842-5 ;  principles  involved, 
remarks  of  Corwin  and  Bhett,  846-8 ;  war  terminated,  treaty,  848. 

Washington,  commander-in-chief,  46;  president,  75;  letters  to  Hamilton  and 
Jefferson,  101-3 ;  refuses  to  comply  with  a  call  for  correspondence  re- 
specting the  Jay  treaty,  143 ;  his  suspicions  of  Jefferson,  149 ;  charged 
with  monarchism  by  Jefferson,  150 ;  forged  letters  against,  151 ;  retire- 
ment of,  and  denunciation  of,  by  Aurora  newspaper,  156  ;  again  com- 
mander-in-chief, 166 ;  died,  December  14,  1799. 

Washington,  Federalist  newspaper,  199. 

Washington,  city  of,  seat  of  government,  85,  86 ;  capitol  at,  burned,  268. 

Warehouse  act,  passed,  873. 

Webster,  Daniel,  oi)poses  tariff,  280 ;  on  Foot's  resolution,  894 ;  on  expunging 
resolution,  622;  on  power  of  removal,  626-8;  on  spoliation  bill,  623; 
on  postponing  fourth  instalment,  681-2;  appointed  secretary  of  state, 
744  ;  letter  of,  on  cabinet  resignations,  754 :  speech  of,  on  compromise  of 
1850,  809-902 ;  his  death,  937. 


1^16  THE    AMERICAN   STATESMAN.  '      •.  •  V;. 

Western  lands,  ceded  to  general  government,  58,  85. 

West  India  trade,  382,  &c. ;  Gallatin  sent  to  England;  negotiation  cut  off,  384  j 
treaty,  386;  M'Lane's  arrangement,  528-30;  relief  from  the  effects  of, 
the  treaty  prayed  for,  784. 

Whisky  insurrection  in  western  Pennsylvania,  105,  106. 

White,  Hugh  L.,  on  Indian  bill,  514-15;  on  expunging  resolution,  622;  on  re- 
movals, 628-9. 

Wirt,  William,  attorney-general,  1000 ;  nominated  by  anti-masons  for  president, 
564. 

Wolcott,  secretary  of  the  treasurv,  136. 

Woolens  bill,  of  1827,  403,  &c. 

Woodbury,  Levi,  on  Foot's  resolution  (powers  of  government,)  498  ;  secretary  of 
the  navy,  548  ;  secretary  of  the  treasury,  617. 

Wright,  Silas,  on  spoliation  bill,  623 ;  reports  sub-treasury,  680 ;  remarks  on 
postponing  fourth  instalment  of  the  surplus  revenue,  689. 


CORRECTIONS. 

On  page  281,  it  is  stated,  that  the  bill  to  incorporate  a  bank  of  the  United 
States,  was  defeated  in  the  senate  "  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  vice-president^ 
George  Clinton,  who  was  opposed  to  the  bill,  not  on  the  ground  of  its  unconsti- 
tutionality," &c.  This  is  not  correct.  The  writer  had  in  mind  the  opinions  of  a 
certain  other  distinguished  public  functionary,  which  were,  through  inadvertence, 
attributed  to  Mr.  Clinton,  whose  opposition  to  the  bank,  it  is  well  known,  was 
based  upon  the  ground  of  unconstitutionality,  as  stated  on  page  985  of  this  work. 

On  page  1004,  the  statement  purporting  to  exhibit  "  the  value  of  certain  arti- 
cles imported"  is  a  statement  of  articles  exported,  as  the  intelligent  reader  will 
readily  perceive. 


yz^j 


6 


m 


»f» 


w?r^  _,..i^^, 


^  s/  -* 


„^  14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED  S8i5- 

II  LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWAIS  ONIY-TEI.  NO.  642^05 

This  book  ,s  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below  or 

■w  J'tl^L  ^^^  '°.'^'"'^''  renewed  ' "' 

tBtMflflfairF  fllhinrt  iummediate recall. 


KENr 


A. 


?#^  k 


/5V^ 


(J401S 


176B 


Library 
niversity  of  California 
Berkeley 


^""-^^ 


«&;'^;J 


jyii.iAS«»  ::'S«s 


-     wCWrtV 


5v«S 


r 


^C  50473 


i?-«* 


aV' 


